The BDN Editorial Board operates independently from the newsroom, and does not set policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com.
A majority of U.S. states already have bans on unauthorized paramilitary training, and Maine can join this list while standing on solid constitutional ground.
The Maine House and Senate have narrowly advanced legislation sponsored by Rep. Laurie Osher of Orono that would specifically ban gun and explosive training that is intended “in furtherance of civil disorder.” Lawmakers should pass the legislation, which has been amended to address concerns raised by the American Civil Liberties Union of Maine and others, and Gov. Janet Mills should sign it into law.
There is plenty of weapons training that helps people better prepare to protect themselves and their communities. That is a good thing, and not something that this bill would prohibit. When such training is done with the intent to cause civil disorder, however, it by definition becomes a threat to the community rather than a source of protection.
The amended version of this bill tracks with the tested approach of other states like Vermont. Maine would be the 27th state to take this step. The bill is not targeting speech or ideas, but specific actions with specific intent. It would not ban all firearms or explosives training activities, just those conducted with the aim of causing civil disorder.
In this country, we repudiate extremist speech with our own speech. Beliefs have First Amendment protections. Extreme actions, however, do not necessarily carry the same protections. We regulate dangerous actions intended to cause disorder with laws.
Jacob Glick, who serves as policy counsel at Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, explained the constitutional considerations well in testimony to the Maine Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.
“LD 2130’s prohibition on paramilitary training stands on firm constitutional and legal ground. The proposal is consistent with both the United States Constitution, the Maine constitution, and Maine statutes, none of which protect private paramilitary organizations,” Glick told lawmakers in late January. “The restrictions that would be imposed by LD 2130 would be viewpoint neutral and applied to conduct that is protected by neither the First or Second Amendments. The bill does not seek to prohibit freedom of expression, freedom of association, or lawful possession and carrying of firearms. Instead, the bill prohibits paramilitary training activity, including instructing others in deadly tactics for use in a ‘civil disorder.’ This regulation would be both constitutionally permissible and in keeping with state laws across the country that govern private paramilitary activity. It also would provide Maine with an important tool to address the rising threat from paramilitary training camps operated by domestic extremist groups.”
This legislation in Maine followed the saga involving a Neo-Nazi training facility in Springfield. And while that situation demonstrated shortcomings in Maine’s existing anti-militia laws and emphasized the need for further action, it is not the only reason for action. This ultimately isn’t about the beliefs of Neo-Nazis, as abhorrent as those beliefs are. This is about the actions of any paramilitary group, regardless of ideology, that seeks to cause civil disorder.
It is those actions that this bill targets, and it is those actions that Maine should ban by passing this bill into law.
