Should a person who has used unlawful force or violence to deprive someone else of their rights be able to serve in California’s National or State Guard?
That’s the question posed to legislators in the form of a bill from Sen. Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana.
Sacramento Snapshot
Editor’s note: Sacramento Snapshot is a weekly series during the legislative session detailing what Orange County’s representatives in the Assembly and Senate are working on — from committee work to bill passages and more.
His bill, which passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee last week, would bar someone from enlisting in the California National Gaurd or State Guard if they “actively participate in, advocate for or engage in the use of unlawful force, unlawful violence or other means to deprive an individual of their rights.”
That includes supporting terrorism or overthrowing the U.S. government, participating in an insurrection or advocating for discrimination, according to the bill.
If someone is already a member of the Guard and is found to have participated in that conduct, then they would receive a non-honorable discharge, the bill states.
“We should not be training folks to use lethal force who are advocating for the overthrow of the government,” said Umberg. “If you’re an extremist on either side of the aisle … or whether you’re just a person who believes we should overthrow the government by violence, we shouldn’t train you. We shouldn’t train you how to do it more effectively.”
As the bill notes, there are already procedures in place for the National Guard to discharge those who are members of extremist groups or participate in similar types of activities.
The bill points to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection — many people who participated in the deadly riot were members of the military, a CBS analysis found — and a recent report from the Pentagon that found participation in extremist groups by former servicemembers seems to be on the rise.
That report also shone a light on the confusion within the military on how to define what constitutes extremism; policies to counter extremism that were at times contradictory; and data that was “inconsistent at best.”
Umberg’s bill is meant to “counteract this murkiness” and implement more specific guidance for California’s Guard.
“The California National Guard has adopted Army regulations that provide examples of prohibitive extremist activities/affiliations, but commanders are given a range of punishment options, one of which is administrative discharge,” an analysis of Umberg’s bill said.
So far the bill has seen bipartisan support in the legislature.
“It’s a relatively new bill,” said Umberg. Still, “folks on both sides of the aisle believe, as I do, that the military has a specific function — that is to defend our nation from enemies foreign and domestic and adhere to the Constitution. If you don’t have the ability to do that … then you shouldn’t be in the military.”
Next up: The bill heads to the Appropriations Committee.
In other news
• Legislators last week added controversial amendments to a slate of measures meant to crack down on retail theft, including two from Sens. Dave Min, D-Irvine, and Josh Newman, D-Fullerton.
Called “contingent repealer clauses,” the changes would nullify those bills should they become law and voters approve reforms to Proposition 47 in the fall. Democratic leaders have said the changes would “address conflicting or unintended outcomes” should the bills and the ballot measure both pass. Both Min and Newman accepted the amendments.
The move has angered Republicans — and even some Democrats, who removed their names from the amended bills.
Related Articles
Sacramento Snapshot: Legislators clash over how to address retail theft crimes
Sacramento Snapshot: Legislature considers how AI can impact the 2024 election
Sacramento Snapshot: How the California Legislature is tackling AI this year
Sacramento Snapshot: Bill banning plastic bags passes state Senate
Sacramento Snapshot: First-time DUI offenders in OC would have to install breathalyzers on cars, bill says
Assemblymember Diane Dixon, a member of the Appropriations Committee where the amendments were added, said she was disappointed in the maneuver.
“I supported these measures as part of a bipartisan legislative retail theft package that would address crime in our communities. Making these bills void in the event the voters pass an initiative in November is junior high politics,” said Dixon, a Newport Beach Republican.
“I hope the Democrats change their mind and remove the amendments and pass commonsense policies we can all support that implement the change we need,” she said.
• A bill from Assemblymember Kate Sanchez, R-Rancho Santa Margarita, to increase punishments for those who repeatedly secretly record minors in full or partial undress without consent is moving through the legislature. The bill would make it a felony for a repeat offender, who is at least 18 years old, to take such recordings or photographs, typically referred to as “upskirt” photos, when the minor has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Good News! My bill to increase penalties for predators who take “upskirt” or intimate images of children just passed a key Senate committee with bipartisan support.
Thank you to @OCSheriff for sponsoring this important legislation. pic.twitter.com/T4rki0Qd9y
— Assemblywoman Kate Sanchez (@AsmKateSanchez) June 18, 2024
Leave a Reply