Maine’s Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety held a public hearing on Monday for Rep. James White’s (R-Guilford) bill to repeal the last legislative session’s controversial ban on “paramilitary training” that raised Second Amendment concerns.
[RELATED: Controversial Bill Targeting “Unauthorized Paramilitary Training” Passes Through Maine’s House…]
“This law was put in place to fix a problem that wasn’t there, it opens up standards so vague that an old man telling war stories to his grandson in a diner could be considered grounds to convict. This law stands in contradiction to some of our most basic constitutional rights and freedoms,” said Rep. White.
White’s brief bill, LD 303, drew support from eight Republican co-sponsors, including Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn), as well as from the Passamaquoddy Tribe representative Aaron Dana.
The bill serves as a blanket repeal of Maine’s law banning paramilitary training.
Although the majority of Mainers submitting testimony opposed the bill, a few people spoke in favor.
One man, self-described leftist Mark Coitrone, spoke in favor of the repeal from a civil liberties perspective, expressing concerns that, while the bill is currently intended to quell white supremacist groups, it could be turned against left-wing activists such as ANTIFA or Black Lives Matter if Republicans were to take control of the state.
“You should not give yourself power that you don’t want your opposition to have,” said Coitrone.
Though a few people supported White’s proposed repeal, the majority opposed it, often suggesting that a repeal of the law would lead to Maine becoming overrun with neo-Nazi and white supremacist training grounds.
“During a period of official government policies of intolerance and celebration of racist militarized groups, to invite this into our state is insanity. It will almost certainly embolden violent actors and lead to heightened fear in peaceful rural communities, especially among members of vulnerable and already targeted groups,” said Susan Dexter, a citizen submitting testimony against the bill.
Hancock Sheriff Scott Kane testified against the bill on behalf of the Maine Sheriffs Association.
“Individuals who continually exercise their 1st Amendment right of Free Speech
often spread fear to fellow Mainers that are individuals of color, or those who practice religions that are perceived to be different than their own,” said Sheriff Kane.
“Maine’s sheriffs believe we need to continue to prohibit anti-Semitic and racist activities, and if we remove Sec. 1, MRSA Title 25, Chapter 252-B from statute, we are removing critical protections that are in place for the very people who need them most,” he added.
The fiscal note attached to White’s bill claims that repealing the paramilitary training ban will lead to minor savings in the General Fund along with a minor revenue decrease in the General Fund and special revenue funds. The note suggests a potential minor workload reduction for Maine judiciary staff, who will no longer have to prosecute alleged paramilitary trainers.
Currently, no one has been charged under the paramilitary training ban.
Rep. Laurie Osher (D-Orono) originally proposed the ban in response to a brief, failed attempt by neo-Nazi Chris Pohlhaus and former Democrat activist Fred Ramey to establish a training ground in Springfield.
During his testimony, White pointed out that the alleged Nazi paramilitary group had had already been driven out of the state due to public backlash, without the need of legal intervention.
That bill to ban training raised significant concerns from firearms instructors who spoke with The Maine Wire last year.
[RELATED: 2nd Amendment Concerns Raised as Maine Considers Bill Targeting “Paramilitary Training”…]
“This bill is a slippery slope, a solution looking for a problem,” said Joshua Raines, vice president of Gun Owners of Maine (GOME).
The bill passed through the House by a single-vote margin.
The ban prohibited any firearm and explosive training if the training is intended to be used in, or “in the furtherance of,” civil disorder. Firearm instructors and Second Amendment supporters raised concerns about a potentially broad definition of what could constitute civil disorder or the furtherance of that disorder.
“The United States of America was founded on what this bill would define as a civil disorder. I find it very likely that King George III would have been very, very supportive of this legislation,” said Rep. Donald Ardell (R-Monticello).
The original bill also included a provision preventing training even if the trainer “reasonably should know” that the trainee intended civil disorder, even if they did not actually know. However, that portion of the bill ultimately did not pass into law.
Another potentially concerning aspect of the ban that did pass into law allows the Attorney General to take civil action against someone violating, or even someone he believes is about to violate, the law.
“The main concern is the amount of unbridled power this hands to the Attorney General. That specific clause could very easily lead to an abuse of power, as well as being used in a political manner,” said GOME’s Raines.
“The verbiage in the law currently on the books is totally subjective, and allows the beliefs of the attorney general, no matter who that attorney general is, to judge what someone’s intent may be in the future,” said White during his testimony.
This bill, is just one more attempt to chip away at our second amendment rights.
This law would have outlawed the Minute Men of 1775. As Lincoln made clear we cannot as a nation be destroyed by an outside enemy, we can only be destroyed as a nation from within. The Democratic Party as it is today is an existential threat to our Republic.