Oregon, a hotbed of extremism, seeks to curb paramilitaries

An armed takeover of a federal wildlife refuge. Over 100 straight days of racial justice protests that turned downtown Portland into a battleground. A violent breach of the state capitol. Clashes between gun-toting rightwingers and leftist militants.

It would provide citizens and the state attorney general with civil remedies in court if armed members of a private paramilitary group interfere with, or intimidate, another person who is engaging in an activity they have a legal right to do, such as voting. A court could block paramilitary members from pursuing an activity if the state attorney general believed it would be illegal conduct.

All 50 states prohibit private paramilitary organizations or paramilitary activity, but no other law creates civil remedies, said Mary McCord, an expert on terrorism and domestic extremism who helped craft the bill. The Oregon bill is also unique because it would allow people injured by private, unauthorized paramilitary activity to sue, she said.

Opponents say the law would infringe on rights to freely associate and to bear arms.

But dozens of conservative Oregonians, in written testimony, have expressed suspicion that the Democrat-controlled legislature aims to pass a bill restricting the right to assemble and that the legislation would target rightwing armed groups like the Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer, but not black-clad anarchists who have vandalized downtown Portland and battled police.

The pioneering measure raises a host of issues, which Oregon lawmakers tried to parse in a house judiciary committee hearing last week:

If residents are afraid to go to a park with their children while an armed militia group is present, could they later sue the group? What constitutes a paramilitary group? What is defined as being armed?

Oregon department of justice attorney Carson Whitehead said the proposed law would not sanction a person for openly carrying firearms, which is constitutionally permissible. But if members of a paramilitary group went to a park knowing their presence would be intimidating, anyone afraid of also going to the park could sue for damages, Whitehead said.

On the other side of the country in Vermont, a bill making it a crime to operate a paramilitary training camp got final approval from the state senate on Friday. The measure, which senators earlier approved by a 29-1 vote, also allows prosecutors to seek an injunction to close such a facility.

Under the proposed Oregon law, a paramilitary group could range from groups whose members wear uniforms and insignia, like the Three Percenters, to a handful of people who act in a coordinated way with a command structure to engage in violence, McCord added.

State representative Rick Lewis, a Republican from Silverton, asked pointedly during the committee hearing whether rocks and frozen water bottles, which Portland police said had been thrown at them during demonstrations in 2021, would fall under the proposed law.

McCord, the terrorism expert, said the measure would mark a milestone in the US, where the FBI has warned of a rapidly growing threat of homegrown violent extremism.

The tactic of enabling private residents to file lawsuits against paramilitary groups may be a novel one, 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 authorizes lawsuits against anyone who performs or aids in an abortion. In Missouri, a law allows citizens to sue local law enforcement officers who enforce federal gun laws.

But the Oregon bill differs from these laws because only people who are injured by unlawful paramilitary activity could sue, McCord said. The Oregon bill also opens a path for a government enforcement mechanism, since it allows the state attorney general to seek a court injunction to prevent a planned paramilitary activity, she said.