SALEM, Ore. (AP) – An armed takeover of a federal wildlife refuge. Over 100 days of continuous racial justice protests turned downtown Portland into a battlefield. Violent violation of the state Capitol. Clashes between right-wing and left-wing militants.
Over the past decade, Oregon has had the sixth highest incidence of extremism in the country, despite having 27 times the population, according to the Oregon Secretary of State’s report. Currently, the state Legislature is considering a bill that, experts say, will create the most comprehensive law on paramilitary activities.
It would provide citizens and state attorneys general with civil remedies in court if armed members of private paramilitary groups harass, or intimidate, others participating in activities they have a legal right to do, such as voting. Courts can block paramilitary members from carrying out activities if the country’s attorney general believes that the activities are illegal.
All 50 states ban private paramilitary organizations and/or paramilitary activities, but no other law creates a civilian remedy, said Mary McCord, an expert on domestic terrorism and extremism who helped draft the bill. The Oregon bill is also unique in that it would allow people injured by illegal paramilitary activities to sue, he said.
Opponents say the law would infringe on their rights to freedom of association and bearing arms.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Dacia Grayber, a Democrat from suburban Portland, said the proposed reforms “would make it harder for private paramilitaries to operate with impunity throughout Oregon, regardless of their ideology.”
But dozens of conservative Oregonians, with written testimony, expressed suspicion that the Democratic-controlled Legislature intended to pass a bill limiting the right to assemble and that the law would target right-wing armed groups like Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer, but did not. black-clad anarchists who have destroyed the city of Portland and fought the police.
“This bill will clearly limit who can gather in groups and why they vote,” wrote Matthew Holman, a resident of Coos Bay, a town on Oregon’s southwest coast.
The pioneering move raises many issues, which lawmakers tried to address at a House Judiciary Committee hearing last week:
If residents are afraid to go to the park with their children when there are armed militia groups, can they sue the group? What do paramilitary groups consist of? What is defined as armed?
Oregon Department of Justice attorney Carson Whitehead said the proposed law would not sanction people who openly carry firearms, which is constitutionally allowed. But if the paramilitary group went to the park knowing their presence would be intimidating, anyone who is afraid to go to the park can sue for damages, Whitehead said.
“This particular bill is not aimed at open individuals. It is directed at armed and coordinated paramilitary activity,” added McCord, who is the executive director of the Georgetown University Law Center’s Law Institute for Advocacy and the Protection of the Constitution.
On the other side of the state in Vermont, a bill making it a crime to operate a paramilitary training camp won final approval from the state Senate on Friday. The measure, which senators previously approved by a 29-1 vote, also allows state prosecutors to seek an injunction to shut down the facility.
“This bill gives the state the authority it needs to protect Vermonters from fringe actors looking to create civil disorder,” said state Sen. Philip Baruth, Democrat and Progressive from Burlington.
Baruth introduced the measure in response to a firearms training facility being built without a permit in the town of Pawlet. Neighbors often complain about gunfire coming from the Slate Ridge facility, calling it a threat. Baruth’s bill now goes to the Vermont House.
Under the proposed Oregon law, paramilitary groups could range from those who wear uniforms and insignia, like the Three Percenters, to those who act in a coordinated manner with a command structure to commit violence, McCord said.
Rep. Rick Lewis, Republican of Silverton, asked pointedly during the committee hearing whether the rocks and frozen water bottles, which the Portland police said had been thrown at them during the demonstration in 2021, would fall under the proposed law.
A bottle of frozen water and rocks can cause serious injury or death, so they will be considered a dangerous weapon under Oregon law, answered Kimberly McCullough, legislative director of Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum.
Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt, whose jurisdiction includes Portland, testified on the bill, expressing frustration that police often cannot identify violent actors among peaceful protesters.
“Our current inability to deal with this violence before it starts leaves us vulnerable to organized criminal elements who enter the protest environment with the intention of escalating the situation into attacks or arson or riots,” Schmidt said.
McCord, a terrorism expert, said the move would mark a milestone in the US, where the FBI has warned of the threat of violent extremism at home.
“This bill as amended will be the most comprehensive statute to address illegal paramilitary activities that threaten civil rights,” he said.
The tactic of allowing private citizens to file lawsuits against paramilitary groups may be novel, but it has been used in other arenas.
Environmental groups, for example, can sue businesses accused of violating federal pollution permits. In Texas, a 2021 law authorized the prosecution of anyone who performed or assisted in an abortion. In Missouri, the law allows citizens to sue local law enforcement officials who enforce federal gun laws.
But Oregon’s bill differs from that law in that only people injured by illegal paramilitary activity can sue, McCord said. Oregon’s bill also paves the way for government enforcement mechanisms, as it allows state attorneys general to seek court injunctions to prevent planned paramilitary activities, he said.
Whether the bill will pass is unclear. It needs a simple majority in the House and Senate to go to Democratic Governor Tina Kotek for approval or veto. Kotek spokeswoman Elisabeth Shepard said the governor generally does not comment on pending legislation.
Associated Press reporter Wilson Ring in Montpelier, Vermont, contributed to this story.