Republican lawmakers and gun rights advocates on Monday opposed a bill aimed at outlawing private militias, citing fears that the proposal would criminalize weapons manufacturers and prevent ordinary people from learning and practicing self-defense.

A group of masked men, shown here giving a Nazi salute, demonstrated outside the state Capitol in Augusta in August, chanting “refugees go home.” Photo courtesy of Lance Tapley

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Laurie Osher, D-Orono, was submitted in response to an increase in public displays of white nationalism in Maine in recent years. A Portland Press Herald investigation last year found that many hate groups already have a presence, including the well-known white supremacist organization NSC-131, and many are actively recruiting members by seizing upon broader societal grievances.

One prominent neo-Nazi, Christopher Pohlhaus, sought to establish a whites-only compound in Springfield, a small town about 70 miles north of Bangor, drawing widespread condemnation.

Although Pohlhaus wasn’t named during Monday’s hearing, he was heavily referenced. Some lawmakers even pointed out that Pohlhaus sold his property amid the public backlash, which was enough for some lawmakers to oppose the bill as unnecessary.

“What happened without this law in place is that they went away,” said Rep. Robert Nutting, R-Oakland. “I’m not convinced we didn’t do just fine without this law in place.”

Proponents, including Attorney General Aaron Frey, argued that the additional protections are needed to address any future activity. He said “the Springfield moron” showed the limits of Maine law and has made public comments about trying to establish another camp in Maine without having his name attached to the land, providing a playbook for others.

Advertisement

“I don’t know that they did go away,” Frey said. “We’re in a different position than we were when this started to bubble up in the news last summer, because people now know exactly what Maine’s law is not capable of covering.”

The bill drew little live testimony during Monday’s hearing before the Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, and most of the written testimony opposed the proposal. The committee did not take action on the bill.

Osher said she began working on the bill, LD 2130, with Frey and the Georgetown University Law Center in August.

As drafted, the bill would prohibit paramilitary training, including the use and manufacturing of firearms and explosives and other tactics, if the trainer “knows or reasonably should know” that the activity “is intended to be used in the furtherance of civil disorder.” It also would create a new felony and allow the attorney general to seek a civil injunction to stop unauthorized paramilitary activity.

Osher said she plans to amend the bill to address concerns from the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine, which argued that a provision should be rewritten to apply to any trainer who “intends” for their activity to be used for civil disorder. They also opposed the creation of a new felony in state law.

“We should be very clear in Maine,” Osher said. “We do not need a citizen’s militia that’s organized by an individual that is not sanctioned to be training people to do insurrection, even if he says he’s training people to defend himself against insurrection.”

Advertisement

But opponents, including the leader of a local militia and committee Republicans, argued the proposal was unconstitutional. They say that it would infringe on the constitutional right to free speech and assembly and the right to bear arms. They sought to frame the bill as affecting all these activities, rather than just those intended to further civil disorder.

Rep. Donald Ardell, R-Monticello, said he doesn’t agree with Pohlhaus’ message but supported his right to free speech and assembly, and the state’s law that allows people to openly carry firearms in public.

“The reason we have a Bill of Rights is to keep those restrictions on constitutionally protected speech,” Ardell said. “This is a protection from government … I find their message absolutely reprehensible, but I will support their right to say it.”

Jacob Glick, policy counsel for the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy at the Georgetown University Law Center, said the law was on strong constitutional footing, noting that similar laws exist in 26 states and have been used to successfully prosecute paramilitary activities in Virginia and New Mexico.

Glick said constitutional provisions for a “well-regulated militia” have long been recognized as those regulated by the government, not those operating independently from it.

“This bill is really designed to tackle concerted efforts by violent extremists who are planning to use deadly force against others,” he said.

Advertisement

DRUG, BORDER CRISES CITED

David Waterhouse, who identified himself as a leader of a group called the Maine State Militia, opposed the bill, because he worried that it would prevent his group from conducting training. He said his group has zero tolerance for racism or discrimination on religious grounds and supports law enforcement.

Waterhouse said his group conducts paramilitary training, as well as training in CPR, first aid and other survival skills. He said the group even trains in traffic control in case it is called upon to help law enforcement and first responders.

Waterhouse pointed to the ongoing drug crisis in the United States and the failure to secure the southern border as reasons for the group’s training.

“We are in perilous times,” he said. “You’d have to have your head in the sand so deep that only your toes are showing not to realize we have serious problems.

“We have teams that can be called on to support the sheriff’s departments or police if they get overextended,” he added. “You have no idea how many people have come across the southern border that don’t love us and want to do something nasty. We will do everything we can to help law enforcement keep the people of Maine safe.”

Frey said the proposal is designed to strike a balance between legitimate constitutional activities and unauthorized paramilitary activity.

“LD 2130 would provide additional tools that we do not believe we have now,” Frey said.

Copy the Story Link

Related Headlines


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

filed under: