Committee hears bill to allow civil injunctions against private paramilitary activity

Assembly Judiciary Committee members on Thursday heard testimony on Assembly Bill 119, a bill that would add a civil enforcement mechanism and investigatory authority for the attorney general to address private paramilitary activity in Nevada.

The bill, presented by Assemblymember Erica Roth and legal expert Mary McCord of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP), would not create a new crime, the presenters said, but would allow courts to enjoin organized armed activity “in furtherance of the objectives of a private paramilitary organization” and would give individuals harmed by such activity a private cause of action for damages or injunctive relief.

Supporters said the purpose is to target organized, armed behavior that threatens public safety and civic processes while preserving constitutional protections for speech and lawful firearm possession. Mary McCord, ICAP executive director and former senior Department of Justice national security official, told the committee the bill is “viewpoint neutral” and modeled on existing state laws and court precedent, including Presser v. Illinois and District of Columbia v. Heller.

Key provisions and sponsor explanations

- Definition: The bill defines a private paramilitary organization as an organized body of three or more persons associating under a command structure to function or train to function in public as a unit of combat, combat support, law enforcement or security services. - Civil enforcement: The attorney general could investigate suspected paramilitary activity, issue investigative demands, and seek injunctive relief where there are reasonable grounds to believe prohibited conduct is occurring or about to occur. The bill also would grant a private right of action to persons injured by covered conduct. - Prohibited conduct: Categories to be enjoined include publicly patrolling, drilling, training to use weapons or tactics capable of causing injury or death, substantially interfering with government operations, and unlawfully assuming the function of law enforcement — generally when done while armed and in association with an unauthorized paramilitary organization. - Exceptions: The draft contains exemptions for historic reenactments, government‑sanctioned training and government‑authorized security services; sponsors said they would refine language to avoid sweeping in lawful activity such as private property defense.

Sponsor and expert testimony

Assemblymember Erica Roth (Assembly District 24) opened the presentation and emphasized the bill’s intent not to criminalize lawful self‑defense or ordinary firearm possession. Mary McCord, ICAP executive director, said the bill fills an enforcement gap by providing civil remedies in addition to existing criminal statutes. McCord noted that similar criminal prohibitions exist across the United States and that some states have added civil enforcement mechanisms; she cited Oregon’s 2023 enactment and said more states have considered variants of this approach.

Questions and concerns from committee members

Members pressed sponsors on potential vagueness and on how the bill would distinguish criminalized paramilitary conduct from lawful activities such as open carry, private training on private property, ranch patrols or church security details. McCord responded that the bill targets organized groups acting under a command structure and engaging in specific threatening conduct in public; she said routine open carry or private self‑defense training on private property would ordinarily fall outside the statute as drafted, and she indicated sponsors are open to refining language and adding clarifying exclusions.

Assemblymember Yurek asked whether public demonstrations in open carry could be swept in; McCord replied the combination of the organization requirement (a command structure and unit behavior) plus the prohibited conduct elements would limit the statute’s scope. Members pressed on licensed security services and whether local authorization (for example, by a sheriff) would suffice; sponsors said Nevada’s existing licensing framework for security services (referenced by witnesses as Nevada Revised Statutes chapter 648) remains in force and that government‑authorized security is excluded.

Public and agency testimony

- Anthony Shafton, identifying himself as a rally marshal from Reno, testified in support and urged civil remedies in addition to criminal laws. - Michael Morton, Special Assistant Attorney General, testified in neutral and said the attorney general’s office has discussed jurisdictional and investigatory coordination with the sponsor. - An additional neutral witness raised broader concerns about local law enforcement conduct and paramilitary activity.

Clarifying details and sources

Mary McCord told the committee that criminal prohibitions or related constitutional provisions exist in most states: the Nevada presenters referenced that 48 state constitutions provide civilian control of the militia, about 30 states have anti‑militia statutes similar to Nevada’s existing law, more than 25 states have anti‑paramilitary statutes, about a dozen states criminalize falsely assuming law enforcement functions, and at least nine states regulate uniforms similar to military attire. Those counts were provided to the committee by the bill’s presenters as background.

Outcome and next steps

The committee held the public hearing and took testimony; no final committee vote or floor action was recorded at the hearing. Sponsors said they will work with stakeholders and may introduce clarifying amendments to narrow or better exclude lawful private activity such as ranch property protection, licensed church security, and private self‑defense training on private land.

Why this matters

Supporters said civil injunctive tools provide an earlier, preventive option than waiting for criminal prosecutions after a violent event. Opponents and some committee members asked for sharper statutory exclusions so lawful property defense, licensed security, and benign private training are not unintentionally covered.

Ending

The committee closed the hearing on AB119 after questions and testimony and indicated the sponsor would continue stakeholder outreach on amendment language.