Trump Executive Order

The faulty Fourth Circuit decision issued last week upholding Maryland’s Scary Gun Ban runs afoul of good jurisprudence. The ruling found that Second Amendment protections don’t extend to individuals who wish to own certain semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, calling them, “weapons that are most useful in military service.” However, a document sent to me yesterday offers hope of correcting that in the form of a proposed executive order to be issued by President Trump.

Virginia attorney Lenden Eakin sent me the text of the proposed order and gave permission to share it. I’d like run it past the Armed Intelligentsia here at TTAG to get your take.

The simple mechanism of attorney Eakin’s proposal: by defining certain categories of rifles for militia use, the President could strike state and local bans on many of the most popular “assault rifles” and their magazines.

Mr. Eakin also notes: “An Executive Order like this could have a significant impact on the litigation to challenge Assault Weapons Bans currently making its way through the Courts. It would help the challengers.”

UPDATE:  I neglected to note in the original story how this is meant to serve as a stop-gap measure.  Ideally, only until a more permanent remedy could be achieved.  Or alternatively, until the Supreme Court, with one or more President Trump appointees, could reverse that Fourth Circuit ruling and strike scary gun bans on the whole.

 

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

DESIGNATION OF MILITIA RIFLES

By the authority vested in me as President and Commander in Chief of the Militia by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure the ability of citizens of the United States to defend themselves, their communities and their States, as well as to ensure the safety and security of our Nation, I hereby order as follows:

Section 1.  Purpose. Both individual and community safety are critically important to the national security of the United States. Terrorism, transnational criminal activity and potential acts of war by foreign nations present a significant threat to national security and our citizens, who have the right and the duty to defend themselves, their communities, their States and the Nation.

Section 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the executive branch to:

(a)  Support and defend the Constitution, including the Second Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms for Militia purposes,as well asself-defense.

(b)  Encourage citizens to be prepared to act as members of the Militia to defend communities, States and the Nation, as part of the common defense contemplated by the Constitution of the United States.

(c)  Discourage restrictions by States and political subdivisionson individual possession of firearms suitable for Militia purposes by citizens of the United States.

Section 3.  Definitions.

(a)  “Militia” has the meaning given the term in Title 10, Section 311 of the United States Code to include the Unorganized Militia, as well as the meaning given to the term “Militia” under equivalent State statutes.

(b)  “Self-Defense” shall mean the actions of citizens to defend themselves and their families from physical attack.

(c)  “Communities” shall mean neighborhoods, towns, cities, counties and other political subdivisions of citizens who live in distinct geographic areas within a State.

(d)  “State” shall mean one of the fifty States of the United States.

(e)  “Militia Purposes” shall mean training, practice and preparedness which could improve the ability of a citizen to act,and to be armed in case of a need to act, as a current or future member of a local, State or National organization commanded by government officials and responsive to a physical threat.  Appropriate organizations include those commanded by an elected county or city Sheriff; those commanded by the Governor of a State through officers of that State’s  Defense Force as authorized by Title 30, Section 109 of the United States Code, or through officers of that State’s National Guard;and organizations commanded by the President through officers of the Active or Reserve components of U.S. Armed Forces.

(f)  “Militia Rifles” shall mean the firearms designated in Section 4 that are made in America and suitable for use in self-defense, community defense, defense of States and defense of the Nation.

Section 4.  Designation of Militia Rifles.  That the following firearms and accessories are authorized and appropriate for individual citizens to keep and bear for Militia purposes under the Constitution and the laws of the United States:

(a)  The AR-15 and similar semi-automatic rifles, to include flash suppressors and bayonet lugs, magazines of up to thirty round capacities, M-7  bayonets, and ammunition in 5.56 NATO or .223 Remington, in all quantities.

(b)  The M1A and similar semi-automatic rifles, to include flash suppressors and bayonet lugs,magazines of up to twenty round capacities, M-6 bayonets, and ammunition in 7.62 NATO or .308 Winchester, in all quantities.

(c)  The M1 Garand and similar semi-automatic rifles, to include flash suppressors and bayonet lugs, M-5 bayonets, and ammunition in.30-’06 Springfield, in all quantities.

(d)  Bolt action rifles in the calibers of .30-’06 Springfield; 7.62 NATO or .308 Winchester; 5.56 NATO or .223 Remington; or any substantially equivalent caliber, and ammunition appropriate for the rifles, in any quantity.

(This list could be expanded or replaced by a broad definition)

Section 5.  Pre-emption.  This Executive Order is intended to pre-empt the laws of States or political subdivisions that infringe upon the rights of citizens to keep and bear the arms designated in Section 4.

Section 6.  Judicial Notice.  That the judges of all State and Federal Courts are hereby given notice that possession of the designated Militia Rifles and accessories by citizens should not be restricted or infringed upon by State laws or the laws of a political subdivision of a State and any such law should be reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard to determine whether it is a violation of the Constitution of the United States after judicial consideration of this Order and the fact that it was issued by the Commander in Chief of the Militia.

Donald J. Trump

THE WHITE HOUSE

March __, 2017

 

PROPOSED EXECUTIVE ORDER DESIGNATES MILITIA RIFLES FOR CITIZEN OWNERSHIP

 

 

 

326 Responses to Proposed Executive Order Designating Certain Rifles for ‘Militia Purposes’

  1. Aren’t EO’s easily nullified by the next White House incumbent? Some sort of Supreme Court ruling strikes me as being a little more set in stone, we need to get these conservative SC judges appointed first though!

    • Yes, they are easily nullified, but they are a good stopgap measure and will set a precedent in the public consciousness, one that future presidents might be afraid to revoke.

        • “No future democrat would be afraid to revoke this. None.”

          “Correct. And they would pay for it when they next face their voters.”

          Think about it. Such a Demoncrat would have been elected because of a strict anti-gun proposition. How would said Demoncrat be punished by the electorate that voted him/her into office in the first place?

        • “Such a Demoncrat would have been elected because of a strict anti-gun proposition”

          Not necessarily. Plenty of Democrats *cough*Obama*cough* get elected by swearing up and down that they don’t care about guns, only to show their true colors after being elected. That’s how they get the Fudds to vote for them.

        • Then there are people like me who are working pretty damn hard to get us Democrats to see how wrong we are and have been on the gun issues, and just how divisive the issue truly is for blue collar folks. Of which I am solidly one.

          The last election should have proved that, but there really is a disconnect at the higher levels (and, frankly, from the Moms Demand types) that thinks this is a negligible, sideline issue, but it isn’t. Not any more. It represents something larger than just guns now, and if the Democrats want to start getting back some of their scratch, they better stop acting like the only people who can, should, or would possibly want to own a gun are cops and hillbillies.

        • Whatever, the progtard/dems are wrong on EVERY issue for the last 50years and most issues for at least the last 150years.

        • But by the time the future president COULD revoke it people would already have as many AR15’s and full capacity mags as they want. California would be awash in them. Imagine the fun they’d have trying to pass a confiscatory ban and then collect them all up.

        • Except for our idiotic, self serving and corrupt governor in NY. Cuomo wants to run for President and extend the SAFE Act to the entire US. We must not allow him to win the office.

      • I agree, it’s a start and could be a ‘place holder’ until something more concrete can be implemented. I’m not sure about naming individual firearms though, it seems that anything too defined like that could cause problems later on down the road. Perhaps it should should just read ‘any weapon capable of being carried on or about one’s person’ or something similar equally wide ranging?

        • ” I’m not sure about naming individual firearms though,…”

          Fully agree. It’s the same if the 2nd Amendment said “muskets” instead of saying “arms”.

        • Think of it this way: the militia is intended to supplement the Army, National Guard or law enforcement and act as a force multiplier in some scenarios and theories, so it stands to reason that the populace be armed with weapons similar to what they might be issued from state armories – hence the specifying particular models and calibers. If such an order were to become law ( 🙂 ) and the general issue weapons in those armories updated to include newer models in the future, civilians would not only be allowed but EXPECTED to obtain a similar model weapon to keep up with the changing standard. Not a bad idea to begin with, might could use a little tweaking…

        • Agree totally – don’t refine/define a list of arms, except possibly those already covered under current ATF regulations. And by all means, as a stopgap measure only.

          Under these provisions, (1) my AR-10 would not be covered; (2) remove any verbiage on size of magazines – 40 round, 100 round could still be banned, and an AR-10 with a 25 round magazine would not be protected.

          Further, forbid states to enact ANY increased fees or process on ANY permitting process currently in place – and do so before our good brothers in CT get the shaft…

        • ” I’m not sure about naming individual firearms though,…”

          First, remember that this would be a stop gap measure. Second, naming firearms that are semi-auto versions of current or recent individual infantry rifles is much easier to justify as being a measure to support the military. Think British Home Guard in 1940. That was their “unorganized militia” being activated and organized. They had nearly no firearms. If we ever had to activate our unorganized militia, it would be very helpful to have people that could bring a rifle that was ammo and magazine compatible with current weapons. Even the M1s could either be converted to 7.62 (a chamber insert has been used in the past) of ammo could be easily produced. Having such firearms in the hands of the public does have value as a military measure.

        • The proposed EO looks like it was written in a hurry. Nothing wrong with that as long as someone remembers to go back over it and smooth it out before sliding it across the Presidents desk.

          1. The word “rifle” should be replaced with “firearm” across the board.
          2. Firearm(s) to be defined as “any rifle, pistol, or shotgun”
          3. Rifle: Any firearm with a barrel over 12″* in length with a permanently attached fixed or folding stock, and a rifled barrel.
          4. Pistol. Any firearm with a barrel under 12″ in length with an easily detachable stock or brace, and a rifled barrel.
          5. Shotgun. As above in 3 or 4 but with a smooth barrel.
          6. Strike the phrase “American Made”. Nice sentiment, but a big handicap.
          7. Possibly include a disclaimer exempting firearms with belt-type ammunition feeders.

          Note that no mention is made of the rate or type of fire. This way mag fed automatics might sneak in here but belt fed is still restricted. Seems fair to me at this point. Note that this pretty much nullifies the NFA 34.

          It’s close now but some minor format changes would make it a prepared bill for some ballsy young legislator to put forward. Statute law is much harder to ignore.

        • Bottom line. “The right of the people (that’s us folks) to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT INFRINGED.” Period!!!! It’s simple and to the point. There’s NO mention OR prohibitions as to what “type” of arms are ok, it implies that ALL arms are applicable. Neither, does it make reference to “sporting arms”. These references by sitting judges are pulled out their A– and have absolutely NO FOUNDATION to back them up. Instead of interpreting the letter of the law, they’re making up the law to their own satisfaction AND in violation of the ” separation of powers” provisions in the Constitution!!! The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are big “thorns” to the liberal’s preconceived notions about “the way things ought to be”. Consequently, they’ve been trying to rewrite them for years, and unfortunately, they’ve succeeded too many times without getting “knocked in the dirt” for it. They’re going to keep doing, until they “spanked” and run out of office!!!!!! What a mess!

      • Popetal Alan404 • 2 hours ago
        We need Congress to add addendum to existing laws regarding gun purchasing to define “Assault weapons”.
        An assault weapon shall be any firearm, manufactured for military use only, capable of firing multiple rounds with one(1) sustained pull of the trigger. This would supercede any actions by state or local jurisdictions to pass laws such as those currently effective in Maryland , California, etc.

        • I’d include all current military versions under protection. No Constitutional authority to ban select fire weapons, and the militia clause explains that current military weapons should be considered the most protected of all. Pistols, real assault rifles, sniper rifles, sound suppressors, NVG scopes: the 1st Amendment prohibits their prohibition.

        • No, it wouldn’t. Each law gets to define its terms. Defining “assault weapon” as a banana in one place doesn’t affect its definition as a scary black gun in another.

          I mention this because the “assault weapon” legislation in CA and elsewhere has an explicit and specified definition of “assault weapon”. No executive order or federal law can change what weapons are covered by those laws.

          The interesting question is whether EOs can use the supremacy clause to void those laws. They’ll still cover what they cover, but it won’t matter.

          The suggested EO doesn’t try that approach.

          It’s probably a slam dunk that a federal law could overturn these laws but good luck getting that through Congress.

    • An EO is the law of the land until/unless a future President overwrites it. Courts are set to rule on whether the law of the land is Constitutionally viable. This little bit of court stuff will be seen by the Supreme Court in the next couple of years and this EO will probably play a part in the SC’s ruling. If the SC rules that the state law violates the Constitution OR that the state law is in conflict with this EO and rules against the state of Maryland…. It will mean overturning a TON of state laws and setting a legal hurdle for future AR bans. Even if the next president revokes this EO, it’ll still have set the gun control nanny state back years if not decades.

    • An EO is the law of the land until/unless a future President overwrites it. Courts are set to rule on whether the law of the land is Constitutionally viable. This little bit of court stuff will be seen by the Supreme Court in the next couple of years and this EO will probably play a part in the SC’s ruling. If the SC rules that the state law violates the Constitution OR that the state law is in conflict with this EO and rules against the state of Maryland…. It will mean overturning a TON of state laws and setting a legal hurdle for future AR bans. Even if the next president revokes this EO, it’ll still have set the gun control nanny state back years if not decades.

      If it fails, we aren’t any worse off. If it succeeds, it’s a huge win for us

      • Lawyer’s fantasy as you suspect.
        This is a hastily thought up ‘suppose this could be’ as opposed to a ‘here’s what’s being drawn up for the President’s signature’.

        As others have commented; there’s problems-a-plenty that needs reworking.

    • Please, Please. PLEASE! Add “pistol grip” to the list of features, as well as specify “detachable” magazines. Somebody needs to let him know! Take to twitter fellow 2A’s as I do not have an account.

    • OH NOES! It’s NOT PERFECT! Let’s not do it. And Trump isn’t doing ANYTHING! OK Nevertrumpers, which is it? You want to wait 1,2,5,10 years for the PERFECT solution? Go to hell. This is HERE AND NOW! We will deal with the future in the future. If Trump signs this EO, it knocks the legs out from under a LOT of anti-gun BS. Trolls begone.

    • Yes, but as the article states, this is to be in effect until such time as the supremem court has a full compliment of conservatives who should overturn the 4th circuit.

      • “…this is to be in effect until such time as the supremem court has a full compliment of conservatives who should overturn the 4th circuit.”

        We had that with Scalia on the court, and we wound up with “reasonable restrictions”. Then the lower courts overturned Heller by ignoring that ruling and proceeding as they wished. The effort need to be pressure on congress, and a demand they remove gun rights cases from jurisdiction (not talking crimes and criminals, here).

        What are the Repubs waiting for now? Total possession of all seats in both houses? They already won, and are still acting like the minority party.

    • Yes, they can be nullified…but then Congress could actually pass a bill enacting the same thing. My only change would be to change section 4 to read

      “any firearm that has in the past 100 years, been authorized for issue to the US military…” etc. etc. etc…

      or some such wording. That would simplify it greatly while allowing and rifle previously issued by the military as a duly authorized militia “gun”.

      • How about:
        a) Any firearm of semi-automatic or manual action, of any magazine capacity, including a muzzle brake and/or flash suppressor, a bayonet lug, and any ergonomic additions to its furniture, in any caliber up to and including .50.

        And yes, delete the American made part. Nice thought but not really needed.

    • In the strongest terms – NO! Of the last 7 presidential elections, 4 were won by democrats who spent 16 years doing their damnedest to dessimate and bastardize the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment in no uncertain terms says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” PERIOD. Any attempt to ameliorate this statement is an acquiescence to those liberal, socialist progressives looking to rend our liberties and freedoms from our hands and bequeath it to the elitists in government. Your blindness to the possibility of their twisting your objectives to their ends shows a level of ignorance that I am not comfortable with. They will redefine and water down your new definitions to meet their ends when they regain office, which they will do.

      Our main and only focus should be a complete and total reaffirmation of the rights of the people to keep and bear arms by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Assumption of the peoples’ need of militia style arms is inherent in their need to defend against all enemies of this nation, foreign and domestic. NO!

    • True, but it’s a good stop-gap for the next four years. Ideally, Congress would pass a similar law – which president Trump would sign — and dare any future Congress to repeal it. It would be political suicide for an awful lot of Representatives and even a few Senators.

      • “Ideally, Congress would pass a similar law…”

        They already did: Second Amendment.

        How’s that working out?

        The “law” that should be passed and signed is one restricting the jurisdiction of federal and state courts, prohibiting review of any instance involving gun ownership (including the law proposed). While such a law can be repealed by a majority vote (or a veto override), all the time it is in existence, we win.

        It would be entertaining to watch federal courts try to bust their way into gun ownership cases by declaring the section of the constitution that allots congress the power to establish courts and jurisdiction is unconstitutional.

        • “They already did: Second Amendment. How’s that working out?”

          Regardless of how you (and I) view the Second Amendment, the simple fact is that the courts often don’t see it the same way. The proposed executive order and law we’ve been discussing – while imperfect – would help reinforce our side’s case. Yes, an executive order could be easily revoked by a future president and a law could be overturned by a future Congress, but it would exact a political price on our opponents. I strongly suspect Congress would decline to overturn the law because many of them would lose their seats.

          Your proposed law stands about a zero percent chance of ever being enacted, and it might well not pass judicial review since it restricts the power of the courts to judge cases, which is, after all, their job.

        • “Yes, an executive order could be easily revoked by a future president and a law could be overturned by a future Congress, but it would exact a political price on our opponents.”

          I would like to think it so, but the reality is that the anti-gun people have more voters. Otherwise, gun ownership would not even be a question. If the Second isn’t secure, why would mere legislation (or an EO) be more secure? The issue is court rulings, meaning jurists. No matter how many gun owners vote for whatever measure, the courts are packed against free citizens making free choices. It is the courts that need to be brought to heel. And there is absolutely no stomach in congress for restricting court jurisdiction. Waiting for a majority of bad judges to die out is a losing game. We have 10mos to force congress to do anything positive. Incrementalism got us here.

    • Yes, an EO is easily nullified by the next incumbent, four or eight years later. But remember the lesson of the EPA’s unconstitutional Clean Air program (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/246423-supreme-court-overturns-epa-air-pollution-rule): though ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, the EPA chief crowed that it didn’t matter because she had already had three years to force the industry into compliance and spend money on programs to meet her edicts. The lesson here would be to use this EO to dismantle and destroy whatever anti-gun infrastructure exists at the state level (for example, Massachusetts’ gun owner registry), so that even if the EO is later repealed, the antis would need to make significant expenditures to rebuild it from scratch.

      • If POTG owned the courts, you thinking about using an EO to force change until rescinded by a new president, it might be a viable plan. However, a court will stop this proposed EO in about 30sec. Obama had a pliable court system; Trump does not. And all the while Trump fights the courts, the EO is null.

    • Are you an expat Brit? By your comment I assume you’re most likely pro RTKBA, I would love to hear your take on it being a right rather than a privilege which a government can revoke on a whim.

    • Indeed we do and obviously we cannot get them appointed soon enough. I’ve already written Cruz, Cornyn, and Green about confirming Gorsuch AND forcing the witch Ginsburg to take a fitness for duty exam (since she has been caught more than once sleeping on duty) to see if she can be persuaded to simply RETIRE thus opening up another conservative seat for confirmation.

      • All this yo-yoing back and forth is getting us nowhere. Dicussion and venting are healthy, but what’s needed is a a very big hammer to bring some serious clarity to this issue. I would suggest that the most bang for your buck is a proposal to ammend the the Constitution’s 4th Amendment, thereby clarifying and solidifying the “right” in a manner that is UNQUESTIONABLE to anyone but the insanely and terminally STUPID. It would be wise to float a petition nationally to ensure that the votes to get it passed are there beforehand. In the meantime, the EO is a step in the right direction, AND is miles ahead of anything we’ve seen for a long time.

  2. Nice idea for a fiction novel. EOs are not constitutional amendments, and can be overturned in a heartbeat (leaving all those “militia gun” owners where, exactly? In addition, there will be dozens of federal judges fighting each other to be the first to issue an injunction.

      • “So we should just go home & slit our throats, right?”

        Thinking people might conclude that the answer is not a flimsy EO, but huge pressure on congress to limit the scope of judicial review regarding gun ownership. Of course that takes courage not displayed in congress since…..ever. Fact is, no court, at any level, will ever declare the second amendment to be “absolute”, or even near absolute. Even SC rulings are ignored by lower courts, with impunity. It would take about five generations of appointing textualists to every state and federal court before the issue of gun ownership is resolved in favor of POTG.

        Again the question, “When the next Demoncrat becomes President and reverses the EO, where does that leave all those gun owners who took advantage of the POTG EO?” Suddenly they become felons?

        • “So again I say to you, it’s better to simply surrender now.”

          If that is your preference, versus doing the really hard work, I promise to do nothing to interfere.

        • Sam, Donald Trump is not in a position to issue a Supreme Court ruling, nor to somehow reissue the Second Amendment, nor even to sign a bill into law before the bill is passed by Congress. An EO he can do tomorrow, now it’s your turn, to explain why he should not.

          P.S. Are you, by chance, one of those here who spent so much time pre-election and inauguration telling us Trump would not actually try to reinforce 2A? Now pretending that is not what he is doing?

        • Not expecting Trump can do anything more than issue an EO. An EO would be useless five minutes after issue (the immigration EO cannot be dismissed as a fluke). At best, such an EO would be a misfire to be used over and again against Trump and us. At worst, the inevitable overturn could leave gun owners in position of being immediate felons.

          Legislation is the only “good” answer. Courts must be slapped down, permanently (or as permanently as can be done with legislation). Put the courts in the position of stating that the constitutional provision that allows congress to set jurisdiction for courts is unconstitutional.

        • Where does that leave owners of semi-automatic rifles in anti-gun states, in the future? It would hopefully leave so many of them that the state would be powerless to actually do anything about it. Connecticut passed a law that said everyone who owned what the state deemed an “assault weapon” had to register it by a certain date, and no more could be purchased. Prior to that date, sales of semi-autos shot through the roof, percentage-wise. After that date, out of the estimated number (not sure of actual numbers, just making an example here) of say, 1 million “assault weapons” in Connecticut, only a few thousand were registered. The state there is absolutely powerless to do anything about it, unless they happen to arrest someone in the commission of a crime using one of those unregistered semi-autos and use it as a tack-on charge. A lot of law-enforcement in that state said they don’t have the resources to enforce that law nor will they waste the resources they do have to enforce it.

        • Conn did not go far enough (happily). They could have ordered LE to flood shooting ranges, gun shows, create a “probable cause” standard that because so many banned arms were purchased in an attempt to circumvent the law before it was effective, it is highly likely that any person in an automobile likely has a firearm at hand, or in the vehicle. Conn could have written laws that make any traffic stop include a search for weapons. Conn could have done much more; one day, some state will do these things. I can foresee California declaring that any gun sale six months prior to their banns to be prima facie evidence of illegal intention to evade the pending law, and evading a law is illegal.

        • Sam, I am. “the immigration EO cannot be dismissed as a fluke”. The “fluke” is it is going to be pushed the SCOUS
          The whole point of this EO, is to get it to the Supreme Court. It lays out the arguments in black and white. It prevents tap dancing around the Second Amendment, like most of the 2nd amendment cases do.

        • “The whole point of this EO, is to get it to the Supreme Court.”

          And the whole while, nothing is done.

      • “We the people” should be pushing for something similar to this as an amendment to the 2nd.

        Along with legislation removing jurisdiction over gun cases from the federal and state judiciary.

        But that will be hard work.

        • “Both of those goals, while commendable, are covered by the 2A.”

          Precisely. The courts have allowed erosion of this basic right. The courts can only be constrained by the congress. That is where the fault lies. That is where the hard work lies. Cheap theatrics (EOs) do not make a solution. If POTG cannot force congress to limit the courts, then every “win” for POTG is chimera. Built on sand.

        • OK SamIAm, you go ahead and “pressure the courts and Congress”. Let us know how that works out for you in the present climate. I will tell you how, the same way it’s worked for the past decades. Congress is spineless, and the courts are filled right now with lib judges.

          The rest of us would applaud an Executive Order such as this. The 2nd Amendment is the only federal law we need. Once the swamp that is SCOTUS gets drained through attrition, the various courts gutting of Heller will be overturned.

          But you keep pushing the your anti-Trump agenda. You’ve made your point, it’s getting old. Time to tune out.

        • “Congress is spineless, and the courts are filled right now with lib judges. ”

          Yes, we agree. And an EO will change what? Are we into symbolism, now? We have had that for the entirety of Obama’s rule. Looking for more of the same? Throw the bums out. Trump should have issued a single, simple EO – “All EOs issued between Xdate and Ydate are hereby rescinded. No efforts or resources will be expended enforcing any EO from that time.” BOOM.

          “But you keep pushing the your anti-Trump agenda. You’ve made your point, it’s getting old. ”

          Demanding Trump keep his promises is “anti-Trump?”. Holding him accountable is disloyal? (Actually, I don’t care who is President; all power is in the legislature and the bureaucracy…and the courts). Why is Trump not hammering congress over having nothing ready, off the shelf, for Trump to sign? When the Obama-nuts took office, I was amazed at the speed and determination they had. I thought, “My God, these people act like they will be in power forever”. Trump and Repubs act like it’s just another day at the club; nothing to get excited about. Spicer is doing all the heavy lifting. Trump won because he wouldn’t stop throwing things out there so fast that the oppo could not respond. Now he is allowing the oppo time to dig-in and retaliate. What happened to the New York smash-mouth Trump showed us in the campaign?

          The sad thing is all the townhall meetings the Tea Party used to own. Now they are overrun with leftist radicals. Where are the large crowds of right-thinking people? It looks like (on warped TV coverage) that the Tea Party is satisfied things are set in stone, in their favor, and there is no need to turn out like before.

      • To date no whole nor any portion or any of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights has EVER been repealed, re-written, revoked or otherwise officially amended. I believe it would be extremely wise to keep it that way. As far as proposing and sending for State ratification this EO as a stand-alone amendment to the Constitution, I whole-heartedly agree, with only a few minor modifications. Most specifically it should include AR-10 pattern rifles in 7.62 NATO.

        • How about just “any rifle, any caliber, any features, any operating mechanism”? Wouldn’t that be simpler?

          It should simply note that circumstances that might require the services of the militia are full of unknowns, so it is strategically foolish and undermines national security interests to limit what tools that militia may have on hand.

        • You’re being silly. How about add AK rifles too? The reason this flies is because it speaks to rifles compatible with common US Military arms. The AR-10 wasn’t and isn’t. If you can’t be happy with an AR-15, M1A or M1 Garand for the purposes of this Order, then being part of the militia is perhaps just not for you.

        • It should be expanded to include direct energy weapons or other conceivable firearms of the future. You can bet your last dollar that a plasma rifle will not be recognized by the Courts as falling under the purview of the 2A.

    • This EO is well within the Constitutional powers granted to the President as Commander in Chief of armed forces which includes both the organized and unirganixed militia. I am surprised that President Obama did not exercise this authority to order the registration of “military style” rifles with the State Adjudant Generals for the purpose of logistics. Such an order would be legal under the actual Militia clauses found in Article I, Section. 8

      Just because a furine President would see this differently fies not make it any less constitutional.

      • “Just because a furine President would see this differently fies not make it any less constitutional.”

        No discussion of constitutionality here. EOs are not as strong as a constitutional amendment, not as easily overturned. Something as flimsy as an EO can leave you in legal jeopardy when overturned by another EO.

        Ponder this: Trump EO declares no firearm or other weapon can be declared illegal, or regulated. POTG rush to buy out the inventory. The nation now has 5X the number of guns and owners as before the EO. Then Hilary comes back and issues an EO that demands all gun owners surrender their firearms in 30 days, or be declared a convicted felon, with appropriate jail time. (let’s not get into obtuse niggling over details, just stay with the concept). Such a new EO would be in the spirit of state laws that already stand, which require gun turn-ins. Don’t think for a minute that all those sanctuary city LEOs would refuse to assist the feds in this matter.

        The EO will be stopped immediately by courts, and we have advanced nothing. The media will hammer on Trump for another failed, reckless, stupid EO, the undecideds will see such an EO as too dangerous, and any attempt at real legislation will be crippled (presuming there is any courage in congress to advance gun rights).

        The proposal before us is way too complicated. Just to play the game, an EO regarding the 4th circuit should simply state, “No federal or state agent or agency shall enforce any law, regulation, code, ordinance or other official act which restricts gun ownership in any manner. All current proceedings against current or potential gun owners shall be terminated with prejudice.”

        • I think you’re dreaming. Hillary is going to campaign on a promise to force 200+ million Americans to throw away items they just spent thousands of dollars for? She would not carry a single state. Besides which, she could negate the EO in a heartbeat, true, but that would still leave her face to face with 2A, which did not go anywhere.

        • You are thinking substance, Hilary would be thinking symbolism. And yes, Hilary would get a minimum of 51% of the populace to vote for her on an anti-gun agenda. You think too much of the voters of this country if you believe there would be a universal uprising over tanking of the second amendment.

        • Samsung autocorrect strikes again. “Future”

          Am EO would not declare anything legal or illegal. The order would simply designate certain weapons to be militia equipment pursuant to the Militia Act which would put them beyond the purview of the States. A future President could rescind the order returning the regulation of such wespons to the States.

        • Never think in positive outcomes when discussing political action.

          If the proposed EO were issued (with or without all the favorite alterations), and if the courts did not strike it down in a nano-second, when Hilary returns, her order would not only rescind Trump’s, but she would use the EO to direct agencies to issue regulations to declare the ownership of any of the weapons (if not all weapons) to be illegal, and for agencies to expend all available resources to locate and apprehend violaters. Thus, an EO would make gun ownership illegal. It is how it works, and why EOs are dangerous at anytime.

        • Sam I Am, you give HRC way too much credit. She is not some all-powerful being that can destroy the universe at a whim. Sure, she has power, and she’s dangerous on a certain level…but she’s not in the White House, and won’t be in four years, either.

        • “…but she’s not in the White House, and won’t be in four years, either.”

          Ok, pick your favorite left wing wacko. Point being, EOs are dangerous. Especially in the hands of Republicans. Tepid, lukewarm, half-measures dumped into an EO means, “Case closed; done deal. Time to move on.” And that will be the end of any pro-gun “push”.

          Trust me, if Repubs use an EO to extend/expand/protect gun rights, Dems will come back like a hurricane. And yes, they will be all powerful.

        • “And yes, Hilary would get a minimum of 51% of the populace to vote for her on an anti-gun agenda.”

          If only there were some recent event we could look at to test this hypothesis. Say, perhaps a national campaign where Hillary Clinton ran on an anti-gun agenda, and which only 28% of the populace (I’m using “eligible voters” as the metric for “populace” here) came out to vote for her. If only such an example existed…

          I think you are mistaking a small, but very vocal, anti-gun minority and the political apathy of most Americans for a broad anti-gun sentiment that doesn’t exist.

        • “If only there were some recent event we could look at to test this hypothesis.”

          That will happen in a little over two years (beginning of campaign season). Hilary’s problem wasn’t due to being anti-gun, her problem was due to being her, discounting the middle of the country, believing the coastal states were in the bag for her, and she didn’t need people in mid-country. It is the latter group that pro-gun people underestimate. They did not vote for Trump based on his pro-gun campaign (oh, you’re right; he didn’t have a pro-gun campaign). For those “deplorables” who put Trump in office, there were a host of other issues they cared about. If Hilary moves to please those renegade voters on all the other issues, she will win. Anti-gun will energize the base, and jobs and jobs will motivate the middle. Once the defectors return, Hilary will have the mandate she needs. We were fortunate Obama swindled himself into believing he could not defeat NRA.

          As the man said, the most dangerous period is immediately following a victory. Especially when the victors become self-satisfied and believe every battle will ball to them, that they need only wait to divide the spoils, that their cause is so righteous it will win of its own inertia. Robert Browning observed, ” The best plans of mice and men gang aft agley.” Or, as my old sergeant said, “When all goes well, something’s amiss.”

        • EOs are only binding on the Executive Branch. If she ordered me to turn in any guns, it would be as binding as if she told me to wear a tutu.

          A lot of you need to learn how the Constitution and the government work before panicking.

          Now, she could order ATF to find differently on definitions, which would be binding unless defeated in court.

        • I know precisely how the government works, which is why I am saying EOs are dangerous. EOs don’t directly and immediately affect citizens. But the actions of directed federal agencies do.

        • If you easily confuse debate and disagreement as “trolling”, perhaps a different blog would be more comfortable. This is The Truth About Guns, not The Truth About the Echo Chamber.

    • Agreed. An EO like this might be a quick, “feel good” means to stick it to the antis, but it will be enjoined quickly, just like the temporary travel ban. Even if, by some miracle, there’s no injunction, it has no staying power. As for the “stop gap/place holder” reasoning for the next ~4 years, considering the politics involved and the speed at which the courts and gov’t move, I think that’s an optimistic timeframe. In the end, an EO like this may just end up being counterproductive in some ways vs. slogging it out in the legislatures and courts.

      • Cute, but irrelevant.

        EOs guarantee nothing. Once reversed, those “armed” militia will find themselves felons, waiting to be caught. As in transporting banned weapons, using banned weapons for hunting (or maybe we will see hunters shoot down game wardens who might arrest them for using banned weapons? Not.). An EO can deputize FFLs and range owners/managers so that anyone who shows up with a banned weapon can be arrested.

        Point is, EOs are dangerous, and make us all complicit is the very thing we opposed under Obama. Some EOs actually are benign orders on carrying out legislation (which itself may not be benign). Mostly they have been used to prosecute agendas that are not in legislaiton.

        In street language EOs make us no different from “them”.

        • Well said samIam. You do seem to have a grasp on the political pulse regarding this issue. The jury is still out for me on which way you lean, and clearly this is not your first time at the rodeo. You have made sound, valid points as someone who may be or may have been involved in a local, state or federal government. At bare minimum, you have made this quite a good debate. One thing, don’t underestimate EO short term effects. My opinion for what it’s worth, should President Trump have pushed his EO regarding postponing certain people coming here from seven terrorist countries, I am certain he would have won in the SCOTUS. The activist 9th circuit is after all the most overturned (speaking in decisions not percentage of decisions) because they rule based on ideology as opposed to the actual law. Anyway, I generally don’t enter these conversations because, although the debate is interesting, I have found, with very few exceptions, one will never convince someone on the opposite end of the spectrum to either see their point much less convert to their point of view or ideology. I do enjoy watching the fencing match though. Stay safe samIam. God bless America & God bless our President Donald Trump.

        • “The jury is still out for me on which way you lean,…”

          Pro gun
          Anti big government
          Anti imperial presidency
          Impatient with sluggards in congress
          Pro self-reliance
          Pro securing the nation from within and without
          Anti goldbug (well, anti gold is the savior of the world)
          Pro enlightened selfishness
          Pro personal responsibility

      • Do you need a safe space SamIAm? You’re convincing no one, literally. In fact, given your endless, repetitive and strident posts against this proposed Executive Order, I think most readers would be questioning your motives right now. Troll much?

        • I haven’t personally insulted anyone for their discussion about belaboring a useless EO. So now POTG are the Taliban?

          If someone really (as in REALLY) intends to push forward a gun-related EO, then why make it so complicated? There are endless nuances and details that would need to be covered, using the format proposed. The EO is doomed, so keep it simple, something like: “Henceforth, no US Government Agency will expend any effort or resources effectuating or enforcing any regulation, order, ordinance, policy, rule or procedure that limits, in any way whatsoever, gun ownership for any citizen who is not a convicted felon.” Period. QED.

        • samIam: And don’t miss these words. “it was issued by the Commander in Chief of the Militia.
          Donald J. Trump”
          The president is NOT the CIC of the militia, but of the standing army. Is this only a ‘mistake’? Or is it there to establish control over all of the militias, which would then be controlled at his whim? I see great danger in this phrase, quite apart from what anyone else might do in future. The danger is clear and present NOW, unless the words “Commander in Chief of the Militia” are corrected(by complete removal).

        • Thank you for the commentary, but not sure you intended it for me. Have said nothing here about the organization or command of the militia.

        • SamIam: Just agreeing with your position that the wording of this EO is highly suspicious. Most of its other shortcomings have been addressed here, but I haven’t seen anyone worried about the signature line, which I consider the most suspect.

    • “The AR-15 and similar semi-automatic rifles…”
      Is the wording of the latter part sufficient to cover AKs and other semi-autos? If so, the OK. If not, then it needs tweeking, like others with AKs have mentioned. Needs to be worded so that it covers AKs, SSKs, Galils, Tavors, FALs, etc, etc, including my M&M M10X.

      Also, would this overturn state limitations on these types of rifles – NY, Calif, etc ?

  3. Don’t limit the magazine count for AR-15s to 30 – state that the magazine capacities do not have a limit. The states will ban the 40-rd mags and above if the EO states specifically up to 30 round magazines.

    Add semi-auto pistols and state any unlimited number of round magazines. Many of those states limit or disallow many semis if they are not on an approved list (i.e. CA).

    Is the President or some other government authority really the commander of a citizen’s militia?

      • Limiting magazine capacity is an issue, even saying “30 rounds and up” would exclude many magazines for the M14.

      • Getting picky here, guys! Should it also have a carveout prohibiting use of such guns in mass murder? Nothing was suggested that indicates if it says “20-round” then you can’t have a 30-round, just that your state cannot prohibit 20-round.

        • If it says 30 rounds, then MA, CA, etc., will then ban any magazine above 30 rounds. That’s why it should explicitly say there are no magazine capacity limits. I also agree stating any AR or AK patterned rifle, or any other semi-automatic rifle in any caliber. Same thing with handguns. Any caliber and any capacity.

    • I don’t know what impact or precedent this would set. But, as long as we’re dreaming, in the context of this EO…

      It definitely needs to be rewritten.
      – No restrictions on what kind of firearms, calibers, ammunition feeding devices or origin. You got what you got, right?
      – As others have written, have the AG start proceedings regarding the Constitutionality of the NFA, GCA, ATF
      – Make firearm and ammunition storage devices tax free and the cost 100% tax deductible up to $5000, to promote gun “safety”. For the children, etc.

      I am sure there are better ideas out there.

  4. The fourth District has already gone against legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in the 1935 case of US VS. Miller. In that case, they decided that Miller had no right to a sawed off shotgun as it was “not conducive to military use”…

    • Rob W,

      Yes. I mentioned this in the previous article a few days ago that covered the recent decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. As you stated, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals directly contradicts the 1939 Miller decision.

      The Miller decision, as flawed as it is, clearly indicates that the Second Amendment protects John Q. Public’s right to own and possess firearms that would be useful to the military and militia. This obviously includes AR-15 pattern rifles.

        • Agreed … as well as short barreled rifles and suppressors.

          Our military has used select fire firearms, short barreled rifles, and suppressors to a greater or lesser extent since their invention. And it goes without saying that our militia, in defense of our communities and nation, would find such items to be highly useful.

  5. (f) “Militia Rifles” shall mean the firearms designated in Section 4 that are made in America and suitable for use in self-defense, community defense, defense of States and defense of the Nation.

    Of course they have to be made in America. LOL

    • Hmm ok so we arrest my family member who shows up with his legally-owned registered M16 huh?

      “Arms carried by a single person.” No more, no less.

      The spirit of this is to say the country might need these citizens to fight one day, and naming specific models of guns is a loser’s strategy. What if HK makes a semi 416 that can run wet and full of sand and that model is NOT called an AR-15, because it isn’t?

      This order sucks. Have someone with a spine rewrite it.

      • I would have included all automatic rifles, except that would be seen as trying to repeal the Hugh’s ammendment through executive order, which isn’t allowed. If someone already owns a registered full auto (which I also have a relative who does) then of course then can use that in time of need, but this EO is to allow all citizens access to firearms that are not considered a special class by the federal government.

    • I personally love the 2nd Amendment Waffling… “2nd amendment only protects a Militia!” “Can’t have that gun cause it’s suitable for a Militia to USE!”.

      Can’t have it both ways. Yes, It’s for a Militia (Citizens defending themselves and the State). Yes, It’s suitable for military use. Thanks for playing.

  6. I see no downside to issuing this type of EO. This is what going on offense looks like. Of course the order will be challenged at some point, of course the next president could override, and so on and so forth. Still, it’s a very good first step in the right direction of reaffirming our second amendment rights. The comedy factor alone of watching the Left’s heads explode is worth it.

  7. Nice start, but by using the term “similar”, it opens to door to arguing what, exactly “similar” means, and invites litigation over that point.

  8. Good start. Better yet, order the AG to bring a challenge against the NFA and GCA in federal court. Better still, have someone else bring the case and order the AG to spike the ball.

    • “Better yet, order the AG to bring a challenge against the NFA and GCA in federal court. ”

      Yes. Such would avoid the opportunity for any judge to issue an injunction. Get the matter before the courts and resolved in one term (because it might be all we have). Of course, the resulting ruling could also kill gun rights forever. But it is worth the risk.

      Fighting over EOs means the media will have ample opportunities to change minds. A misfire will be another botched action by Trump, and on and on. 442.

  9. I am not a lawyer. I don’t know what actual, practical effect such an order would have. I also believe that his description and list of militia rifles is entirely too specific. It does not mention, for example, 300BLK or other cartridges perfectly appropriate for perforating jihadis.

    Why not just say any semi-automatic rifle and leave it at that? Why no love for my Hi-Point 9mm carbine that is currently illegal in three states?

    But if this makes the hoplophobes squirm, get the vapors and throw a tantrum, it will be worth the effort.

    • I would also like to see them add ar variants chambered in 308. Especially since I have an mr762 which is now related to the army’s m110A1 rifle

    • Look, just rename your AK “AR-15S”, S for soviet, of course. The nimrods who are so intense about these things couldn’t tell the difference between an AR and a howitzer.

  10. LOL. Man, cuckservative gun owners are going to be so disappointed in 4 years. Enough to motivate them? Hopefully.

  11. “Militia Rifles” shall mean the firearms designated in Section 4 that are made in America

    Why limit “militia rifles” only to rifles made in the U.S.???

    And what about AK-47s and AK-74s? Not only are they a solid choice for a militia rifle, they would have common magazines and ammunition with many potential invasion forces which means OUR side could reload from enemy stock on the battlefield.

    • Precisely my thoughts. As well as the SKS which I prefer to the AK. 7.62 x 39 is the most ubiquitous ammo on the planet and very cheap to procure in bulk. Recognition of foreign made similar type rifles should be part of any such order.

    • I believe there are currently various Kalashnikov-based rifles being manufactured in the U.S.

      In times of war, we do not want to find ourselves dependent on foreign sources for weapons and replacement parts.

      Being able to use the enemy’s magazines is less important than being able to use our neighbors’ magazines. At the same time, there is nothing novel about picking up the enemy’s dropped weapon and shooting it back at him.

    • “Why limit “militia rifles” only to rifles made in the U.S.???”

      Two reasons, off the top of my head:

      1 – It’s patriotic. Don’t you love America?

      2 – Trump can point to it as an example of him keeping American jobs in America.

    • That in and of itself is a good enough reason.
      Although Andy would be first in line to demand a stay.

      Although why not just simplify the word to “Any and all semi-automatic firearms, regardless of caliber, magazine capacity or cosmetic appearance shall not be disbarred from civilian use.”
      Or something similar.

  12. “What about Bazookas? Do they need Bazookas?” Dianne Feinstein.

    What about Bazookas? Reference the Constitution for the answer.
    We need everything it takes to counter assault an all out military coup.
    I’m not likely to afford anti aircraft artillery in my basement garage but it is my right to own it.

    I like the EO as it is obviously temporary until those lifetime appointments to the courts take place. I would rather see prosecution of legislators and administrators of unconstitutional laws based on Federal civil rights violation laws already on the books. That’s how you stop the tyranny in its tracks.

    • I agree. Until we have a mechanism by which a perpetrator can be forced to move out of his luxury home because he attempted to violate my constitutional rights, while I drive away in his Porsche, the stupidity will never stop. When it may COST them, they will understand instantly.

  13. I’m not an attorney specializing in this type of law but I don’t like this. It’s another layer of interpretation on top of the Second Amendment. The fourth circuit is wrong. Plain reading of the amendment and a review of the founders intent should be all that is required. If the courts insist on legislating then we need to work through Congress to put an end to that and get it to President Trump for signature.

  14. While it smacks of a temporary stopgap, I think the bigger issue would be the MSM spinning this as a way for bigots and racists to “threaten” minorities. They’ll hunt down any whiff of a story that smacks of it and run with it as far as they can. I do think it would be useful though, with some tweaking to include the aforementioned AKs and their variants. Pistols should be mentioned too.

    My hope would be, the MSM crying about blood flowing in the streets, and the inevitable lack thereof, would awaken people to the realization that just because a gun is defined one way or another, just doesn’t change the fact that ultimately it’s a tool for a purpose.

  15. Include AKs under AR15s by stating “and firearms with similar physical characteristics.”

    Expand cartridges to include other military service cartridges including other NATO non-standard cartridges such as 5.45x39mm, 7.62x39mm, 7.62x54R, and 12.7×110 (We do have NATO partners who use these calibers.)

    Also, Barret M82 and .50 BMG need protection

    • Fun read.

      EO should also include “and such other firearms, wherever made, of various calibers and ammunition as shall be at hand in case of need.”

      The hard part: getting the 9th Circuit Court not to just throw it out, as we have seen done to a certain Trump EO recently.

  16. I would just say civilian militia can own the same arms as civilian police.
    Though this EO will only last until the next dem president it would still be fun and really piss off lib progressives!

  17. I appreciate this administration’s attempt to protect gun owners, but this is madness. We have a rogue, partisan, unelected judiciary interpreting fundamental rights incorrectly. Trump is trying to correct this with an EO. The problem is, the executive is not supposed to be rule by decree. We’re not supposed to have a king. This is not Trump’s fault, but it’s a terrible situation. Each “power” is screwing the pooch in their own way. Congress has already passed laws infringing the 2nd and is incapable of walking those back, the Judiciary is not following the supreme law of the land and legislating from the bench, and the Executive is ruling by decree. It’s a complete train-wreck.

    • You forgot to include any solution. Until the Constitution is amended, Fed judicial appointments are for life, we can’t just decide to have different judges unless we shoot them all. So your post just sounds like we should cry about it. EOs, SCOTUS appointments, legislation, voting, that is what we can do. Saying only that it won’t help, doesn’t help.

      • The objective of my post was to point out that even though this is good for the gun movement, maybe this isn’t a good thing overall. Just because the other two branches of government have lost their way and are acting outside their authority, it does not make it right or just for the Executive to do the same, even if we like the results. Three wrongs don’t make a right. The solution is not more of the same that got us here. The solution is a return to the recognition of Constitution and for individuals to embrace the concepts of liberty. The only way that can happen is through education.

      • Solution: Constitutional amendment requiring federal judges at all levels to stand for retention at certain intervals. With a special electoral college, 2 votes per state. Take that, dems.

  18. Skip the specific naming of models and caliber and the ‘made in America’ designation, change to:

    ‘any semi-automatic rifle, shotgun or pistol, revolver, manually operated rifle or shotgun, suppressor, machine guns in the NFA registry, all ammunition feeding devices of design and capacity in use with military or police forces today, and the ammunition to employ them”

    Half the Continental Army was armed with French muskets and bayonets, so immigrant arms are welcome.

  19. Section 4 (a) should read:

    “Any semi-automatic, quickly detachable magazine-fed rifles, irrespective of accessories such as flash suppressors, adjustable stocks, vertical or pistol grips, barrel shrouds, bayonet lugs, or missile launchers, as well as M-7 bayonets and suitable ammunition for said rifles in all quantities.”

    Delete everything else in section 4 except for the bolt action clause, and make that 4 (b).

    • And to specifically include shoulder thingies that go up. Or down, or sideways, or all thingies generally. There, fixed it.

  20. The U.S. Constitution clearly states that the federal government has a duty to provide for the common defense and secure our nation for future generations.

    U.S. Constitution, Preamble.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to … provide for the common defence … and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    The much more important question: which branch of government has the Constitutional authority to arm and equip the militia?

    This strongly suggests that authority is vested in Congress:

    U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section. 8.

    The Congress shall have Power To … provide for the common Defence …
    To provide for … arming … the Militia

    This section of the U.S. Constitution only states that the President is the Commander in Chief without any mention of arming or equipping the militia:

    U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2.

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States …

    As much as I like this executive order, I have to believe that some federal court will immediately strike it down. Therefore, would it be a better use of the Trump administration’s resources to focus on installing a U.S. Supreme Court Justice who will uphold our right to keep and bear arms — including arms suitable for military and militia use? Along the same lines, why not get Congress to pass a law that does exactly what this executive order does?

    • “why not get Congress to pass a law that does exactly what this executive order does?”

      Great idea! If we start now, maybe we can get that passed before the turn of the century! OTOH, Trump could issue that EO tomorrow, to be in effect while we wait for Congress to catch up.

        • Only if they want free helicopter rides. The American people have had just about enough of the rabid left stopping a democratically elected president from doing exactly what he said he would do. The hilarious part is that these lefties are cruising for Trump to be the first God Emperor of the American Empire who ascends to the throne in popular acclaim.

        • ” The American people have had just about enough of the rabid left stopping a democratically elected president from doing exactly what he said he would do.”
          The left doesn’t see the election as anything valid. They see it as an obvious aberration. to be corrected by some sort of magical action that would put Clinton, who was so obviously supposed to win, in the Oval Office.
          I see this on Facebook daily. These people do not understand how elections, or presidential succession works at all. They know what they want, and anyone who doesn’t want the same thing obviously needs professional help. It is so clear, how do we not see this? No opinion but their is valid. It’s just that simple to them.

  21. A potential issue is that many states will take the Militia statement too far. They will reflect on the 2nd Amendment’s text; “A well regulated Militia,…” and attempt to apply legislation and restrictions to ensure the “well regulated” element. Regardless that us readers on TTAG know that well regulated means a properly functioning militia, not overly restricted and controlled.

    The types of weapons in Section 4 should be listed as to include; semi-automatic weapons commonly used in military service, along with all appropriate ammunition and accessories (magazines, bayonets, attachments and features) and all variations of these weapons. The identified type of weapons is not to be construed as excluding other weapons that the individual’s may deem suitable for self-defense and/or militia use.

    • I would LOVE for state or fed government to take on assuring that the militia is “well-regulated”, since that means “well equipped” in that usage. Put me down for an M-16 and a nice jet, please. An A-10 would be especially nice.

        • The general concept expressed by “well regulated” was that of “properly functioning” or “performing as expected”. When applied to “militia”, “well trained and equipped” or even “combat ready” could be a proper interpretation in modern terms.
          There was no modern connotation of “lots of government rules, regulations, and restrictions” in the usage at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, as recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary:

          1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
          1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
          1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
          1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Major.”
          1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
          1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

          The Oxford English Dictionary records the usage of “well-regulated” for some 8 decades before and after the Bill of Rights was written. Note the variety of nouns that adjective modified; appetites, courts, clocks, persons, minds, even an “embryo city”.

        • The words have no meaning in relation to training or the use of militia. You need to remember that as colonies, we had both an organized(by the British Governor and under his command, and equipped as he desired and was able to provide) militia, as well as the unorganized militia, which was whoever chose to show up when the enemy came knocking(whether an Indian tribe or the Redcoats, it made no difference).
          THIS is the meaning that makes sense in a 2ndA conversation. NATURALLY, the farmers who showed up in a time of threat would bring whatever they had as arms and ammunition. They would HAVE to, for there would be no state to equip them, when and if they were needed.
          Exactly as those first Revolutionary War battles showed, they would be fought by whatever manpower was available, with whatever equipment they could buy. beg, or scrounge. I think it was at Concord that they melted down the church organ to get lead for balls! THAT is the unorganized militia. They were NOT under the command of any president, premier, or British Governor, for if they had been, they would have been of no use.
          The well regulated phrase only means that they must have some way of gaining a commander, so that they are actually a fighting force, and not just a drunken mob. Often he was voted upon on the spot, but often he was just ‘appointed’ by the fact of being the ‘boss’ of the community because he was the richest or most well known. But, however the commander was selected, that made the unit “well organized”.

    • State rules on this would be effectively meaningless. 10 U.S. Code § 311 tells us what “the militia” is and what it is not.

      States can’t preempt federal law with their own laws and therefore cannot alter the federal definition. So a state that wished to get into a tit-for-tat language game would lose because the definition already exists in black and white within the USC. Anyone eligible for conscripted service in a federal militia or willing to voluntarily join would be covered by federal law and also by this EO until the EO was changed, rescinded or altered by codified law.

  22. I gotta say, I love the way he words this. He says ARs are necessary for militia and then defines militia by pointing out where in the Constitution the definition already includes “Unorganized Militia”.

    My understanding of our government is Trump is in near total charge of the military and the militia with restrictions only on crafting a budget and the ability to declare war. If Trump says this rifle is good…. then this rifle is good. Period

    People who point out Trump might not be in charge 4 years from now are right about that. But public opinion and support for ARs is at an all time high. States wanting to ban ARs will have to reimpliment this and will probably have to do so over legal hurdles and against public opinion

  23. A horrible idea.

    The door swings both ways too easily with EOs.

    The next Democrat prez can issue an executive order saying that anything less than a .32 revolver ISN’T a militia weapon and isn’t protected and then we have a crisis.

    As for those who’re saying that not backing this EO means not doing anything, that’s insulting to all the folks who’ve participated in civil/legal protests and campaigns that have gotten laws more permanently changed in the last 25 years since the big anti gun push started.

    The animated map of gun law changes that TTAG occasionally puts up is not just a history of success, it points the way forward too.

    It’s better to take smaller surer gains over time than push a big change that could end up being swing against us.

    • Taking small steps towards victory is appropriate when it’s the only thing you can do. When the enemy is on the deck however, you make them kiss the curb and apply boot to back of head.

      • “When the enemy is on the deck however, you make them kiss the curb and apply boot to back of head.”
        Believe it or not, that is exactly the way the left sees it, and is what they are trying to do right now.

  24. How about cutting to the chase and issue an executive order ordering all 50 states to recognize CC permits NOW! This shits getting really old.

  25. I’m not defending this option as the be-all, end-all, but it does have some merits. It establishes the idea among the population that the citizen militia is a real thing and not just the national guard. I believe the purpose is to say that if we were invaded for example, we could call up the citizen militia who would already be armed and trained with standardized weapons that are mostly compatible in parts and ammunition. Standardizing on .223/5.56, .308/7.62, and 30-06 are smart because they were all previously US military issued rounds, and are very commonly available and owned. Same with the rifles named, sharing common parts and manual of arms makes supply chains substantially simpler. I get that lots of people love their AK’s, but it adds one more caliber and rifle style that was not supplied to the typical US military units on a widespread basis. One could make the argument that the bolt action rifles aren’t compatible, but really they are simple, extremely reliable, similar manual of arms to each other, already extremely common among the populace, and don’t require a lot of spare parts that commonly fail.

    I think this EO should be signed to start to roll back unconstitutional state gun control laws. Then, we push for the HPA. Then, repeal of the GCA and NFA. Hard to get it all in one bite, but pushing back one bit at a time seems to be the most effective avenue. Once Californians win back their standard AR’s, they will fight that much harder to keep them in the future as they now understand how easy it is to lose their rights.

    • When discussing standardizing for militia use, I also think he should designate the Beretta 92FS 9mm, 1911 in .45 cal, and now Sig P320 in 9mm or .45 as militia sidearms. Finally he should designate Remington 870 and Mossberg 500 in 12 gauge as militia shotguns. Cover the spread of common US military issued arms and ammunition over the last 100 years that are also commonly owned by the populace.

  26. It would be a move in the right direction. An executive order isn’t as good as a change in federal law, which isn’t as good as a Supreme Court decision, but it’s a step that Trump could take unilaterally.

    I don’t like the list of “approved” designs, accessories and calibers. Rewrite the section so that it covers any firearm. There’s no reason to exclude ARs in 300 Blackout or Winchester 1873 replicas in .44-40.

    The order appears to be aimed at members of the militia. That excludes too many people. According to federal law you are not a member of the militia if you are a man outside the age range of 17 to 44, a woman who does not belong to the national guard, or a resident alien (green card). Recalcitrant states could, and probably would, use the definition to deny militia weapons to senior citizens and virtually all women. Rewrite the order to apply to anyone not forbidden to possess firearms by federal law.

    • I agree that the that specific weapons restrictions are a problem, an amusing revision would be “any individual weapon previously, currently or in the future issued to any member of the US military or militia. This Includes but not limited to any variant produced that contains 75% compatible parts even if in another caliber.” This much broader provision would end up covering everything from Ferguson rifles to HK 416s, M9s, MP5s, Barrett M82, document it and it is authorized. Some where I still have a hand receipt for the RPK I was issued for base defense in AFG. By adding future weapons we get the M41A pulse rifle when the time comes.

  27. While I understand (and would even support) the “buy American” concept excluding foreign manufactured weapons, sets a restriction that can be abused. If a future president outlawed the sale of “militia weapons” in anyway, you would have a situation similar to the current restriction on automatic weapons.

    • “While I understand (and would even support) the “buy American”…

      Am I the only one who sees this idea for what it is; an infringement?

      • Picky, picky. Everything being discussed here is an infringement. If infringements were not allowed, there would be no reason for such an EO!

  28. Why not just expand the language to include any and all firearms chosen for use by potential militia members? Wouldn’t that in essence open the door for all firearms?

  29. I’m not a fan of ‘Executive Orders’, and I think a judge somewhere would intervene in this before I could sneeze. See the recent Immigration EO for proof. They’ll argue that the militia only covers National Guard and not civilian peons.

    Although it could be worth it to see Gov Andy (NYS) have a stroke.

    • Uh…current federal law defines the organized militia (National Guard, Coast Guard) and the unorganized militia (the rest of us)

  30. Include territories of the US.
    Why arbitrarily limited to made in America?
    Whys so specific as to caliber, type of rifle, etc? All arms have a militia purpose.
    Language makes it sound like you need to be a member of a militia group beyond the unorganized militia, fix it to be unambiguous.

  31. Take out the definition “Militia Purposes”. That definition begins to link use to a governmental office. Or leave it in and refer it back to “Militia purposes as intended in 2A.

    Firearms listed should be under a ‘such as’ … and use current case law language (from [Heller]?) to define “Arms” such as “and firearm that … [1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.] and Arms being of the type in common use either in military or in civilian use as in [ Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56] where dangerous and unusual weapons mean “dangerous to hold, carry or operate” and where unusual means “not in common use”

    Something like this.

    The EO should not tie us to Militia IMO rather use the strategy of “in common use” and defined this as above so that if its issued to any force its in scope and if its common in the population it cannot be challenged.

  32. The EO only mentions the 50 states. It should also include the territories which we reign over, who are also the most repressed in respect to gun rights.

  33. Drop all reference to specific weapons and calibers.
    Replace that with a “recommendation” that the AR-15 type rifle in 5.56 MM, as a “civilian version” of the M-16 infantry rifle, identical in parts and operation (other than full-auto or burst fire mode capability) would enhance the logistics for any military support of militia actions.

  34. This proposed EO would create a conflict of law between the President’s order and the “weapons of war” exception to the 2nd Amendment carved out by SCOTUS in Heller. Conflict of laws are typically resolved by…SCOTUS. Y’all are smart enough to foresee the outcome…

  35. Yes, the purpose of this Executive Order was to act as a stop-gap temporary measure until either Congress acted or the Supreme Court ruled on the matter.

    It’s not meant to be an end-all solution to state and local bans, but a way to neuter them until more permanent changes could be made.

    My bad for not further articulating that in the original piece. I’m going to update it as such.

    John

  36. The 4th’s declaration that an AR-15 is a weapon of war, because it resembles a weapon of war, is doomed to failure.
    The Assault Weapon Ban was also doomed to failure, even moreso because it had a sunset clause, which the 4th failed to include, and the 4th’s declaration was based on the same argument.
    The problem with it is that it fails in basic understanding of reality, in that a phasmid isn’t the thing it looks like.
    Yes, an AR-15 looks like an M-16. That doesn’t make it an M-16. The fact that there are no armies in the world that field AR-15s to their troops in the expectation that they will fight with them should be ample evidence.
    This will go to the SCOTUS and be overturned on any of several arguments; the 2A obviously does include weapons of war (even those who think it only refers to muskets must concede that point), and the 4th’s finding that ARs are weapons of war utterly fails on its face, just to name two.

    • “This will go to the SCOTUS….”

      This is the trap. All “good people” take comfort that one day, bye-‘n-bye, the SC will make things right. Meanwhile the anti-gun people do high-fives and shout, “Winning!” Each ruling like the 4th’s is encouragement for more such rulings. The anti-gun crowd now has at least two years to recruit and fiddle with gun laws. Yes, SC may, may, overturn, but meanwhile we suffer (which was the original intent).

  37. This list should be expanded, remove the thirty round limit on magazine capacity to any available magazine capacity. I have multiple 40 round Pmags and I know many folks with drum mags that would appreciate their inclusion in this, though 30 round mags is a good start.

    List should also include AR-10, AK-47 and AK-74 pattern rifles as well as 7.62×39 and 5.45×39 ammunition.

    • 5.8 is what an aggressor would most likely use. I don’t think there is any in the US that isn’t government owned (the original owner or the US government keeping it for test/black ops) though.

  38. I take issue with this executive order placing magazine capacity limits on citizens. As it says that “magazines of up to thirty round capacities” are legal in reference to AR type rifles.

  39. Seems like this relies on the necessity of being “in the Militia” in order to bear arms. My understanding is that this is not generally held as a requirement and that the people’s R2KBA was independent of militia service. I think 4th circuit ruling should be struck down because it is bad interpretation of the law and not by a half-assed and unnecessary EO

    • RKBA is universal, since so long as you are armed, even though you are not a member of the militia today, you may be tomorrow. Remember, after Dec 7, 1941, so near as we can tell Yamamoto had permission to actually invade the west coast. I’m not sure how well we could have countered that at the time, but today we are well prepared! We will just set up defenses on AZ and NV borders, and let them have “room to destroy” CA. But the militia would suddenly be necessary.

      • “We will just set up defenses on AZ and NV borders, and let them have ‘room to destroy’ CA.”

        Snicker … now THAT was funny! Thanks for the laugh LarryinTX!

  40. Why the unnecessary “made in America” limitation? An original Belgian FAL made by FN is NO DIFFERENT in any relevant characteristic than an Illinois FAL made by DSA. A great many muskets which won the Revolutionary War in the 1770s were made outside the Colonies.

  41. Time to clean the Circus Courts of Liberal Activist Judges.
    Yes, I meant “Circus”.
    Whether or not an EO can nullify a Court decision or State Law is something the AG will have to decide.

  42. I disagree with the listing of the firearms, the “semi-automatic” wording, the American made part, and the magazine capacities. I’d rather see something like “…any and all firearms and other weapons deemed necessary by the individual.”

  43. Don’t buy into the legal fallacy that the 2nd amendment refers to militias – that sets the ground work for the elimination of firearm ownership for personal protection. Nix on this EO. The correct approach is to work to get strict constructionalists on the supreme court.

    • “Don’t buy into the legal fallacy that the 2nd amendment refers to militias – that sets the ground work for the elimination of firearm ownership for personal protection. Nix on this EO. The correct approach is to work to get strict constructionalists on the supreme court.”

      I think the point here is that the 2A does specifically give a reason (not THE reason, but A reason) for it’s existence. That reason was that the people could keep arms that were, at the time, exactly what the military would use.
      That doesn’t mean we can only keep and bear muskets (the people who wrote and voted on this were far from innocent yokels), but instead “arms.”
      And I agree: constructionists understand this.
      But the EO helps undo the damage the 4th did until the SCOTUS can rule on it.

  44. Unorganized militia is mentioned. You can have an unorganized militia of one or be a member by joining a blog. Works for me.

  45. I appreciate the intention, but I see two problems.

    1. It plays the antis’ game by defining these weapons as militia weapons. The antis are already using the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment to argue that training should be required for gun owners. Some have gone so far as to say they should be trained as an actual militia. The logical move for them would be counter with a state law saying that if you want militia weapons, you have to join a militia. Then they place onerous requirements on militia membership, such as physical fitness standards in line with the Army’s and / or minimum training hours per month. Result? These rifles are now denied to anyone who isn’t fit enough or doesn’t have enough time to train. Of course, creating an actual militia of dedicated gun owners could ultimately backfire on them. But it would still deny a lot of people their right.

    2. The courts have already shown their willingness to overstep their authority by halting Trump’s executive order on immigration. There is no reason to think they wouldn’t do the same with this order. You can bet that the 9th Circus would uphold any lower court ruling stopping this order. So this would end up in the Supreme Court anyway, and people stuck in the People’s Republic of X states wouldn’t see the benefit before then.

    • Very good points, and I hope with some simple editing, they can be answered.

      1) Insert, “No state may craft legislation to block the access of the people, who are the meaning of the militia in this EO and in the US Constitution, from freely exercising their inherent right to arm themselves, train as THEY SEE FIT, and any such legislation on the militia/citizenry is a punishable offense”,

      2) More importantly, the Militia Arms clause could be removed and, “ALL ARMS” should be inserted in lieu of Militia Arms for your reasons given,

      3) Remove the “Up to thirty rounds” description and insert, “magazines of any capacity that individual citizens deem worthy”,

  46. ALL FING BULLSHIT

    The 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence recites that the [U.S. – AND F ALL OTHERS] RECITES:

    “. . . But WHEN a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” [emphasis mine].

    It says “when”. It is a constant and ONGOING CONSIDERATION because
    WE “HOLD”
    WITHOUT THE NEED OR BENEFIT OF ANY OTHER STATEMENT OR DOCUMENTATION:
    “. . . these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    THAT DOESN’T JUST TAKE “GUNS” IT TAKES “ARMS” IN PARITY WITH YOUR POS A-HOLE NEIGHBORS WHO NEEDED A JOB AND THEN GANGED UP ON YOU AND CALLED THEMSELVES YOUR “GOVERNMENT”.

    F ALL:
    SPORTING PURPOSES
    HUNTING NECESSITIES
    CURIO COLLECTION
    SCIENTIFIC AND RESEARCH PLATITUDES

    ARMS ARE FOR KILLING EVERY SWINGING DICK OUT THERE THAT INHIBITS YOU FROM CARRYING OUT PARAGRAPH SECOND OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

    AND THAT MF DOCUMENT

    C A N N O T

    BE REPEALED.

    F ALL NAYSAYERS, USURPERS, AND IGNORANT POS TRYANNICAL PEOPLE THAT HAPPEN TO LIVE AROUND YOU BUT CONSIDER THEMSELVES MORE EQUAL PIGS.

    • BY LOGIC

      Should you find the need to carryout your equal and SHARED mandate under Paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence. The “government” that you need to abolish WILL BE THE WRONG BUNCH OF MF’S TO THEN ASK FOR PERMISSION TO OBTAIN THE MEANS TO ABOLISH THEM.

      “Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into slavery…. Wherefore, if we must here-after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves? Why do it for another?” ( Paine Common Sense pg. 47)

  47. A long-term legislation via EO? Give me a break, the last Executive Order (the PR stunt with immigration ban, that is) was in full effect for what, a day?

    Putting a limit on certain designs and calibers is, of course, ridiculous. America is big country. Suppose there is 0.0000000000000000gazzilionth-chance occurance, and The Militia will have to actually repel an armed invasion. There are dozens of excellent long-range calibers in relatively widespread use in US, why exclude them?

    The word “militia” is huge opening for negative PR, but there is no going around that with current wording. Expect a lot of “hey, they are just gun nuts/CoD jerks, playing small-unit tactics in the woods and scaring poor bunnies and squirrels shitless!!1”.

  48. This scares me. The main problem I see: using the militia clause to open up these states sets the stage for federal regulation of state militias and also, though this order, relegating those weapons to militia service. Your opening up the door to the Feds regulating these arms through another clause, and it smells like an order that will come back to bite us when there’s a hoplophobe in the White House, but that is just one attorneys perspective…

    • I agree with you on that particular concern. Always someone in government looking to regulate anything they can. However, it seems to me that one of the reasons this nation finds itself in the current predicament is because of too many lawyers taking simple things and making them as complicated as possible in a legalistic arms race. However, I’m sure it’s great as a “job security” thing…

  49. I already have rights recognized, not granted, by the 2nd Amendment, which are far greater than this EO outlines. Any laws which does not pass the “infringement test” is unconstitutional. The whole concept behind the 2nd Amendment is to limit the power of government, not the people.

    • And Democrat politicians, and their rubber-stamp judicial system are more than happy to kangaroo court you or anyone else into a jail cell with a rapist, murderer, etc. for exercising your Second Amendment-enumerated right. A right that cannot be secured isn’t much of a right.

  50. Modify 3(f) “…made in America…” to “…made, assembled or sold in America…” (Don’t want to lose a lot of great weapons from FN, IWI, etc.)

    Modify 3(d) to include District of Columbia, and possessions (P.R., Guam, etc.)

  51. I like this premise as a stop gap, but I think we all certainly should not follow ourselves that this is a temporary measure.

    (f) “Militia Rifles” shall mean the firearms designated in Section 4 that are made in America and suitable for use in self-defense, community defense, defense of States and defense of the Nation.

    “made in America” needs to be stricken. Not all arms owned by unorganized militia members are of American manufacture. Certainly there are high quality arms that are of Russian, Bulgarian, German and Israeli manufacture.

    With respect to types of serviceable militia arms, it would certainly be more clear to reference that

    “Individual and crew served small arms (rifles & shotguns), and side arms (pistols and revolvers) recognized by any DoD or NATO manual shall be considered the general basis for all civilian owned arms suitable for militia duty (as recognized by US. v. Miller). Explicitly, any list maintained by these organizations is neither all encompassing nor shall it be construed to limit the country origin for any manufacture of suitable arms.”

    Essentially, stating that all arms that fall into the small arms category shall be proficient for modern militia service. That holds with Miller & Heller/McDonald.

  52. I’m not convinced it’s wise to designate something as a militia weapon when your problem is that someone else declared it a weapon of war. Isn’t that essentially vindicating their label?

    • I think that’s why the EO needs to reference Miller & Heller. It also needs to state that this list is not to be construed as all inclusive.

      It needs to emphasize the unorganized militia and state plainly that this EO designates all operable small arms/side arms as useful for any militia action or individual self protection.

      Hell, get really cute with the cheeky judgey bastards and extend this to include “during times of domestic terror threat of a minimum condition yellow” and allowing for an open carry of all side arms, by all militia members (17-45 year old males, remember). Feminists would go ape crazy!

  53. 3E.. Did we all just get drafted? Are we now subject to inspection of our military arms? Will the gov now chip in on Ammo?

    Nice Idea but the devil is in the details

  54. Why limit included magazines to 30 rounds? It should include magazines of any size for any firearm included in the list.

    In fact, why not just include any firearm and accessory that is legally purchasable as far as the federal government is concerned at the time of drafting?

  55. Don’t like the magazine capacity limit, and weapons should be all inclusive, not just AR15 and M1 carbine or Garand or whichever few were listed.

  56. So why aren’t AKs or ALL Semi-automatic rifles on this list? You’re hanging half of us out to dry with this list.

    Also, Magazine limits? Whoever wrote and proposed this amendment is a closet liberal.

  57. I would like to see article 4 expanded to include more, or all calibers (6.8 SPC, 300 Blackout, 6.5 Creedmoor, etc.) and greater than 30 round magazine capacity (40, 60, etc.). The way it is written, if there were some type of ban, someone with a 40 round p-mag would be in violation, or if they have an AR-15 variant, such as 300 Blackout, they would also be in violation since magazine capacity and caliber are listed specifically for use by militia. Simple enough to get the caliber and magazine size listed in the document, but I should be able to grab any AR-15 (or AK-47 for that matter) that is available to me regardless of caliber and magazine capacity.

    • I would like to add though that giving any specific definition only makes for a limitation, rather than expansion, for civilians to use any firearms they desire, whether as part of a militia or not.

  58. Obviously, these activist judges need to be thrown off the bench. Nationwide! Continued constitutional infringements!

  59. @John Boch

    In all seriousness. Chime in and let us know if this is helpful and whether this EO will actually come to life. A lot of comments … some good some not so.

    –> Do not itemize any type or model of anything. This is by nature limiting. Rather, Define “Arms” as everything military or civilian; everything that is in common use [use Miller].
    —> Do not link the EO to militia but rely on Heller “… The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense…” Alternative to Militia is to define “Militia” as is described in the Second Amendment.

    • Steve:

      There have been some diamonds in the rough. And yes, it is getting sent up the food chain. And I suspect USA Today will have a story about it in the coming days as I spent 61 minutes on the phone with a reporter about this today.

      This isn’t about listing all guns. This is about the President using his power as the CIC of the “militia” ensuring that the members of the militia – basically all adults – have Garands, M1As, and AR pattern rifles available to them.

      The president doesn’t have the authority to fix bad decisions ignoring precedent (stare decisis?). He does have the authority to “command” the “militia” and ensure the appropriate guns are available to them.

      Some people are all wrapped around the axle about AKs, or guns in general. Or mag capacity. Look folks, this isn’t a “reaching for the stars” proposal. This is a legally defensible proposal that will blow a real hole in the world of anti-gun “Progressive” (aka Anti-gun) Democrats and their fiefdoms.

      Done so that it gives gun owners in those areas some breathing room until we can get the Fourth Circuit decision reversed. (Someone asked that I use the case name, but screw it. Frankly I feel as though the decision as as terrible as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions, and for the time being I may start referring to it as the Fourth Circus v. The American People decision.)

      Legal minds far sharper than mine, with Juris Doctors in their background, have looked at this and like it. The NRA-ILA likes it. And by goodness, if it puts another arrow in President Donald Trump’s quiver, then it’s a good day. Even if it doesn’t get used, it still will rock anti-gunners back if it’s seriously considered.

      John

      • John,

        It is tiresome to see constant and consistent waffling on gun rights. Swing for the fences, or go home.

        Second amendment supporters won, Donald won, Repubs won. Act like it.

      • We’re not quitting here. This is merely a stop gap proposal to gun unconstitutional gun bans for Cali, NY, Mass, CT and the other states’ and localities’ residents.

        Got a better way to provide immediate relief? Let’s hear it.

        John

        • John, when (and not if, but when) the first Progressive federal judge strikes it down in its entirety, what then?

          The Left is steaming hot, and will be until the next election, they will throw enormous effort behind thwarting *any* of the Trump agenda, especially if it involves guns…

        • So, you’re suggesting we do nothing because some judge might throw up a temporary roadblock?

          C’mon.

      • John,

        Yeah, everyone is wrapped around the axle about all kinds of “if only” and “what if” stuff.

        The specific arms are mentioned because they are in US Military inventory–which makes for commonality of equipment when there are joint militia/NG/Regular Military operations. That’s the purpose of mentioning those specifically.

        Here are some suggestions:

        1. This should apply also to the 5 territories (Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and Guam) and Washington DC as well as to the 50 states. After all, any of the 5 territories is far more likely to be invaded by a foreign power than any of the 50 states and Washington DC is probably higher on the terrorist target list than nearly any other place.

        2. Add in sidearms. Specifically, any semi automatic pistol chambered in the two calibers currently issued by the US Military. Namely .45 ACP and 9mm NATO. And especially those sidearms which have been issued by the US military in the last 100 years. Model 1911 pattern sidearms, Beretta 92FS, SIG 226, and SIG 228, can all be mentioned by name as examples of the type.

  60. I hate Democrats and Liberals who think they know better than us.
    “the right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be INFRINGED.
    Infringe: def: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another (see 2nd. Amendment)
    ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. Co. Litt. 161 b, 162 a; Crompt. Just. P. 65; Cunn. Dict. h.t.
    2. The Constitution of the United States, Amendm. art. 2, declares, “that a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In Kentucky, a statute “to prevent persons from wearing concealed arms,” has been declared to be unconstitutional; 2 Litt. R. 90; while in Indiana a similar statute has been holden valid and constitutional. 3 Blackf. R. 229. Vide Story, Const. Sec. 1889, 1890 Amer. Citizen, 176; 1 Tuck. Black. App. 300 Rawle on Const. 125.

    And arms includes the SAME WEAPONS the Military issues the soldiers or other warriors.

  61. It all and well sounds good but EOs were ONE of my biggest beefs with Barry and the other past presidents. The power of the executive office has grown well beyond the founders intention. Pres. Trump should do the right thing and go go through roll back almost all EOs. Then do it the right way and work with congress and pass legislation. It won’t be fast or easy but it’s the right way to govern.

    • Well said. My sentiments also. We do have a Republican Senate and House. It is up to us to see that Dem obstruction is futile.

  62. NO, NO, NO list of approved NOR disapproved!! Stick with “to keep and bare Arms, shall not be infringed” allows all types! Making a list is a trick! A rally point! The band on Full autos should be removed from the law. The high tax on noise suppressors should be removed from the law!

    Making a list is a trick! Do not fall for it! It is the camel’s nose in side the tent. It is “the foot in the door”! It is the inch that leads to the mile. A rally point!

  63. Section 4. Designation of Militia weapon – Any individual (vs crew served) weapon in any caliber and including any magazine and any attachment or accessory.

  64. One note I would make and not seen so far in comments?

    Make sure that the pattern AR 15 rifle or similar?

    not be limited in function by any ‘bullet button or other device that was not originally built into the rifle BY the manufacture or basic design of said weapon for military purposes

    that should or would get rid of the bullet button crap in cali and the later stuff going on now?

  65. I didn’t get to read all the comments so I could be repeating something others have said. First, there seem to be a lot of limitations here. I would think this could be used against us. For instance, some definitions of a militia have a very small age range that stops in the middle of middle age. Also, why a 30 round mag limit. What about 40’s and 60’s and larger mags. Also, why “US made?” I get supporting US industry but it still seems a bit restrictive. That whole section that starts with “The AR-15 and similar semi-automatic rifles” seems very limiting and a bit scary. That needs a re-write. What about 5.45×39 or 7.62×39? Ban-able? What about 338 or 50? I applaud the attempt but it seems very scary that there is any need to list specifics. Why not say any rifle is good to go, no matter the caliber or features? I guess it is OK as a stopgap and those already in free states who happen to have something in 5.45 or 338 are already OK. Still, why the specifics?

  66. As much as I want ALL arms to legally treated as protected by the second amendment, this bit of fluff is as bad as any of Obama’s Exec. Orders used to get around Congress. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but this seams unconstitutional on its face. First, by defining specific types of arms as suitable for “Militia” use it allows non-named arms to be banned. Second, it codifies the idea that “Shall not be infringed” applies only to the militia and not to the people. Third, as an executive order from the POTUS, by definition, it can apply only to the Federal Government and not to the states. The most egregious violations of the second amendment are at the state level.

    • “First, by defining specific types of arms as suitable for “Militia” use it allows non-named arms to be banned.”

      By defining specific types of arms as suitable for “Militia” use, it prevents said arms from being banned (in theory). They can already be banned (in the 4th Circuit, anyway).

      “Second, it codifies the idea that “Shall not be infringed” applies only to the militia and not to the people.”

      Heller says the 2A is an individual right. Legislation, let alone executive orders, cannot redefine the constitution.

      “Third, as an executive order from the POTUS, by definition, it can apply only to the Federal Government and not to the states.”

      The POTUS, by definition, is the Commander and Chief of the Militia. The order would apply to the Militia. The Militia is defined in statute (mentioned in the EO). That Militia is located in the general populace, in the states and territories.

      • Actually the POTUS is CinC of the Militia only when called into federal service. Even the National Guard units (Organized Militia) are under the authority of the various State Governors unless and until called into federal service. So, unless the POTUS plans to draft us all into federal service, he can’t dictate to States what equipment we can (or cannot) own.

        On a separate issue, I’ve seen a number of comments arguing that even with all its flaws it is OK or even desirable to support this EO because it is only a stop-gap that can be corrected by legislation, court decision, or constitutional amendment. In modern history when has any stop-gap measure not become permanent and more (not less) onerous? The income tax was to be a temporary measure to fund the build up for WWI and applied only to the richest citizens. How’s that worked out?

  67. Steve beat me to it (twice).

    The really appalling thing here is that we have the Constitutional law of the land as given by the Heller decision, and the President’s job is to enforce it; AND two circuit courts have flaunted it. I mean the 9th circuit Peruta decision and now this 4th circuit decision. (Please use the name of the decision in future articles.)

    FOLLOW THE HELLER DECISION!! Don’t make the militia use argument. Heller makes clear that the 2A is about an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Purposes mentioned in the Heller decision are self-defense, hunting, or over-throw of a tyrannical government. Oh yeah, militias too.

    Heller really doesn’t want to get buried in the weeds on types of weapons. But they are kinda clear on a couple things. If a weapon has been in large scale common use by average citizens, and it is not dangerous to the user to operate, and it is not really unusual; then it can’t be banned.

    How about a two sentence EO? “If a weapon or magazine or attachment has sold over 100,000 copies to average US citizens legally, and has been in use for more than two decades; then in accordance with the Heller decision it may not be banned from possession, or the act of bearing arms, or future sales. Carrying of arms may blocked in only a limited number of regions, such as court houses and schools, etc.”

    Heller recognizes the authority to ban M-16’s (full auto I presume) and short barreled shotguns as in the Miller decision.

    Then Trump should enlisted the FBI and Federal Marshalls to arrest anyone interfering with US citizen’s constitutional rights as currently adjudicated by the Supreme Court. Perhaps a 90 day jail sentence or until aggrieving situation is resolved would be authorized. AND he should completely ignore any lower court stays on his EO. HE has the authority to enforce Supreme Court decisions, and lower courts may not contravene Supreme Court decisions. Ignore any such efforts.

  68. I think section E should be rewritten to be less able to be misconstrued. As it’s written now and as I read it, it could be twisted to give the left the exact definition of militia they have been trying to say. As in, militia is government controlled like the National Guard. It does say “local”, however it does not actually spell out “citizen militia”. The true meaning in the Second Amendment. It could almost be read to mean that someone has to have enlisted and received training or have taken a class in training to be able to own said weapons. That’s just my 2 cents on it. I love the rest of it though.

  69. I don’t think this would work for a second (and could precipitate a Constitutional Crisis either way) but I would like to see it done because it would make democrats in NYC, MD, HI, etc absolutely shit a brick.

  70. I don’t understand this EO. IMHO, it would be more meaningful if they were not to be so specific of what firearms fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment for LAW-ABIDING US PERSONS. It should then be followed by a Bill in Congress ratifying the EO that would protect all legally obtained guns from any future bans.

  71. So, what the hell happens to my 60rd and 100rd AR mags? Not suitable for personal or “Militia” use? The we may have to declare being in a “Militia”, so we can be targeted by one or more Alphabet agencies now, and by the entire next regime that is gun unfriendly? This is ridiculous.

  72. If the 2nd Amendment says, “…,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” the EO should not limit it by permitting ownership for militia purposes. Gun control advocates read too much into the preamble. The grant of the right is unequivocal. If the Amendment’s ratifiers wanted to limit it, they would have used the word “except” after the word “infringed.” So I do not like the EO because it says “the following firearms and accessories are authorized and appropriate for individual citizens to keep and bear for Militia purposes under the Constitution.” The 2nd Amendment imparts no such restriction or limitation. You cannot undo Constitutional interpretation with and EO, and the EO is ineffective against the States because it doesn’t have the force of the Constitution. This looks like a feel good piece to let gun owners know Trump is trying to do something, but it is detrimental to the cause because it actually gives leverage to those who think ownership of guns must be tied to militia. So I think it is a bad idea.

  73. The descriptions seem OK but the calibers should not be specified except to include ALL calibers from .17 to .50 that are commonly used in either rifles or pistols.

  74. U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    Some time after that, the United States passed a law that the Federal government could not discriminate on basis of age, over the age of majority. Thus, the “under 45 years of age” disappears.

    Some time after that, the United States passed a law that the Federal government could not discriminate based on gender. Therefor, the “males” disappears.

    That leaves us with “able-bodied,” “at least 17 years of age” and “who are, or who have made a declaration to become, citizens of the United States…”

    If you are able-bodied, over 16 years old and a citizen or have declared, you ARE the militia. Whether you join a group to become “A well regulated Militia” is up to you.

  75. David J. Ingraham This proposed executive order is actually to restrictive, should include all caliber of from .17 to .50 caliber, and shoot gun size calibers Too include all type of riffle design and shoot gun design from semi automatic to hand load and cock design of single shot to other reloading manipulation, such as pump action lever action, or bolt action. Also needed to be included are semi-automatic pistols, revolvers, or single shot pistols. That restriction of open carry or ammo restrictions and registration of either the weapon or the sale of the ammo will not be allowed. That any person who has qualified thru a hunter safety course, or previously served in the military, is qualified for any militia even though not a member of a militia.

    • This is an up date to my previous comments to correct ” should include all calibers of from .17 to .50″ to remove the word “of” Correcting the statement to ” should include all calibers from .17 to .50″
      To include in the comment ” that all arms or weapons will remain in the property location as determined by the owner of the the weapons or arms.

  76. A number of problems have already been pointed out (pistol grips, larger capacity detachable mags etc). I think an attempt to dictate the judicial standard of review will be poorly received and may lead to yet another 9th Circuit ruling declaring the executive order UnConstitutional, which will be counterproductive. That adds nothing and should be stricken and left for Congress.

    The order needs to put in a severability clause so that if any single portion is deemed UnConstitutional all other portions survive. It would also make the order stronger if the President’s exclusive authority over the armed forces and militia was stated even more plainly along with a recitation that the Militia is intended to supplement conventional armed forces, that interchangeability of parts and supplies along with knowledge, training and experience with similar weapons is desirable and even necessary for an effective Militia.

    I don’t particularly like doing it by executive order and I don’t particularly like the whole Militia approach since the Democrats have this whole “that only applies to the National Guard” argument. However, something is better than nothing.

  77. Until the incidences of the term “should” (a recommendation and/or suggestion) in the last paragraph are changed to “shall” (a command and/or instruction) this does not have that much strength. Yeah, we should, but we ain’t gonna will be the response of those that this is aimed towards. In it’s current wording it is nothing more than useless, toothless, feel good statement.

  78. I’m in the “minimize” the size of this proposed EO…one or two sentences. Section 3 talks about city Sheriffs. Some enterprising lawyer will start twisting that saying “we have this type of LEO, not city Sheriffs (County Sheriffs, constables, etc) So the less verbiage to wrangle over, the better. Likewise, as others have pointed out, getting into specific calibers, weapons, etc is really going to cause issues.

    Not a lawyer, but section one and two are OK. You could probably cover most things in section 3 by saying:

    ” The executive branch by virtue of exercising his authority as Commander in Chief issues this executive order to clarify that all weapons and magazines recognized as legal by the executive department’s BATF shall be legal for ownership and use by members of the organized and unorganized militias as outlined in 10 U.S. Code § 311. It is the intent of the CINC to work with the Congress to incorporate this EO into US law.”

    Short, to the point, and cannot be challenged as usurping Congressional authority. (yeah, I know a lot of guys hate the BATF, but by placing this under the BATF and saying you’ll work with Congress, you give the lawyers little ground to claim you are taking away their rights…states cannot override the BATF or Congressional passed laws and they know it, and courts will generally support it. 4th “circus” aside.

  79. This is basically a good idea that would get the ball rolling. Only Problem I have with this EO is that it needs to be the precursor to actual Legislation of a similar nature.

    States like CA would tie this up in court forever and nothing would change. They also cannot be trusted to uphold the Constitution of the US in those courts and should not be allowed to regulate or ban anything related to Bill of Rights issues. These should be Federal Laws period, and override any state regulation or law.

    If they can Regulate the 2nd A then they can regulate Free Speech and the 4th or 5th A’s as well as any of the others. Allowing this behavior is a Dangerous Precedent to set.

    Also the Definition of “Militia Rifle” needs to be changed to “Militia Weapon” and expanded to any Semi Auto or Manually Operated Rifle or Shotgun. Also get rid of the Made in America restriction. The term “Assault Weapon” should be narrowed to “any firearm capable of Fully Automatic Fire.”

    The ATF needs to be the Enforcement Body that is charged with enforcing Firearms Laws in the country. There should be no other entity other than Congress allowed to define which weapons private citizens can possess and use for Recreational or Defensive Purposes.

    The Abuses of States Rights in the matter of Firearms Control is well documented, and as such should be taken away permanently. The Second Amendment is not debatable and is an “inalienable right” and should not be left up to the whim of state level politicians acting out their Agendas to interpret or degrade or modify in any way.

    This is a matter best left to the Congress as they are the elected officials who are tasked with making laws that govern the behavior of the citizens of the whole US not just some little pocket of special Interests.

    My .02 on this subject.

    Randy

  80. Executive Order

    The Second Amendment Applies to : ” The Whole Body Of The People ” / All weapons included ( cannon too ).

    The 2 A is recognized as a PRE – Existing Right , meaning no State or Federal Laws against it are allowed.

    BATF is dissolved , as it was NEVER properly or Lawfully created by Congress. ( Have a nice day :))

    ATF – Non lawful creation ;
    http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/cooper/cooper.htm

  81. forget the all-or-nothing whining from many self-proclaimed 2A fans (who may well be on the Bloomberg patroll)… this is decent “2 can play that” pushback

    even better to specify all 2A restoration as #equality legislation or #antirape

    gun culture folks have a real problem over-delighting in their expertise abt rules — giving them too much credit as in referring to items as “NFA” as a cool factor rather than horrendous tyranny

  82. BORN INTO FEAR OF TAKING BACK BRAINWASHED AND PROPAGANDA FROM OUR SCHOOLS?
    I know some will never understand some will always fear and live by the propaganda fear and brainwashed lies.But the truth is here no matter what you call me.
    Citizen Militia is all of We The People. Citizen Militia are not formed and some can be formed. All citizen militia formed are not formed is to hold the weapons that are the same are better than any standing militaries are the liking thereof, to be at the ready when needed to form as the well regulated Citizen’s Militia. No citizens of any age are gender need ask permission from the governments of We The People, State, or Federal if they can own and carry. There is to be no regulatory of the type, amount owned, style, function, of any weapons from those that would be opposed to the Citizens Militia before are at the time when needed to be formed should the time come need be war against foreign are domestic tyrannical.
    Who is a Militia?-individual citizen at birth of any gender of all race creed and color.
    Who can own and carry in any manner?-individual citizen at birth of any gender race creed and color.
    What type of weapons can citizen own and carry in the open are concealed? Any type equally to are greater than any standing Military or the liking thereof.
    What is a number of weapons citizen can own? Any amount there is never too many owned.
    Is stockpiling weapons legal? Yes, the citizen has the right to any amount of weapons and ammo to be at the ready.
    Then who is not to own? A noncitizen can not own or carry in any manner.
    Is there an exception to the noncitizen owning and carrying? Yes, when they are diplomats, are in the protection detail of said diplomat, when on duty in said detail of that protection.
    When is it legal to use a weapon outside of ranges, hunting, practice, formalizing with any weapon? When standing their ground anywhere, in protecting or in the defense of life, limb or property, to stop a crime greater than petty theft or petty theft where force would be needed in defending.
    Deadly force is legal when stopping arson, rape, murder attempt murder, kidnapping, being held, hostage and in the defense of life and limb in the time of civil rioting are mob mentality has taken off the peace. Never in peaceful protest unless protester, are blocking your right to free travel holding you hostage for their purpose. A protester can slow you down but not stop you keep you from leaving otherwise they are attempting to hold you hostage. A protester can not spit on hit are throw abject do damage other than normal that would be done by larger groups standing on grass, sidewalks are in the streets. There is no noise restriction in a protest. Protest right is above any minor law like blocking of the streets, and hwy, to slow down but not stop are cos harm, but never of the interstate, and that shall not stop any other individuals right or in emergency equipment movements.
    Everything I said above is how the constitution of the USA was implemented at the time and never did anyone or group have the right to change that no matter what part of WE The People Government they were in are in or saying they are representing. The change and them saying they had a right as representative of our government to change was done in their greater interest and would be a change of contract between two parties that would have to be agreed upon by both parties, before that change and signed by both parties when changed, the two parties would be We The People holders of the contract called the We The People Constitution and those that represent We The People that hold the representative and elected body of our government either it be State our Federal or both to that contract in its original written and signed into law of the land.

  83. Dangerous slippery slope. I don’t like that we’d be cheering on the defining of what militia arms are and aren’t. You’re not always gonna have a “republican”(cough) as POTUS, and whatever he does gives a green light for your foe to do the opposite when the mantle is passed. He’d do better by charging congress to repeal the Dick Act.

  84. I like it. Its not without risk, but the reward out weighs the risk. A upcoming Dem is going to do everything he can to revoke gun rights. This will not give him a reason. If he does however try to revoke it we have automatic standing to sue him over it. Again I like it.

  85. The TRUTH about the “supremacy clause” – our Constitution does not delegate to the national government authority to restrict our arms, ammunition, regulate firearms dealers, do background checks, etc. The national government may not lawfully circumvent this restriction by means of a treaty wherein the signatory governments agree to disarm their Citizens or Subjects.
    https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/?s=The+TRUTH+about+the+%22supremacy+clause

  86. @JohnNock
    “So, you’re suggesting we do nothing because some judge might throw up a temporary roadblock?”

    We have seen enough of half-measures, symbolism, good intentions. Repubs spent eight years making symbolic gestures to derail Obama, while doing apparently nothing in preparation for the day the Repubs would control. Another symbolic gesture with high probability of court rejection accomplishes absolutely nothing.

    As they say, “Go big, or go home”.

  87. That’s a good outline for an entire section that should be appended to the funding for the Department of Defense, for the President’s signature.

  88. Rather ironic that one of the most liberal ‘conservative’ president in recent history has done EOs on stuff that GB and Reagan never dreamed of touching.

    Lol, I figured that as soon as Trump assumed office he’d pull a Bill Clinton (middle class tax cuts) and walk back his promises especially since he’s been a soft left guy.

    It seems a combination of ‘in your face’ to the leftists that mocked him for running and a determination to separate himself from most presidents who talk big when campaigning and then resigning themselves to ‘reality’ once elected.

  89. The president is not the commander in chief of the militia. Individual state governors are commanders in chief of the several state militias, except when called in to federal service. Aside from that, it could certainly be argued that the Militia Act gives the president sufficient authority to do this. If it doesn’t, then congress’ constitutional authority to regulate the militia, certainly gives them the power, and this language could be written into law. I say go for it. Should the EO run in to trouble in the courts, then pass the legislation.

  90. As such EO would also have to require states to allow residents to purchase such rifles or allow such rifles to be purchased out of one’s state of residence and brought home.

  91. (a) “Militia” has the meaning given the term in Title 10, Section 311 of the United States Code to include the Unorganized Militia, as well as the meaning given to the term “Militia” under equivalent State statutes.

    Doesn’t this part opens the door to define “milita” in an overly restrictive manner as a gun control measure?

  92. Great idea! However, I would make Section 4 more broad. Replace Section 4 (a) thru (d) with the following:

    (a) Any rifle or carbine, or semi-automatic variant or variation thereof, adopted by the United States with a barrel length of 368 millimeters or more and chambered for a cartridge adopted by the United States, to include flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, grips, magazines or other feed devices of any capacity, sights, attachment systems, any bayonet adopted by the United States for a rifle or carbine, and ammunition a rifle or carbine adopted by the United States, in any types and quantities.

    • On second thought, the first line of my proposal needs to be more clear. I would change it to:

      (a) Any rifle or carbine adopted by the United States, or any semi-automatic variant or variation thereof, with a barrel length of 368 millimeters or more…

  93. 4(a),(b),(c), (d) Needs threaded barrels or suppressor mounts.
    4(d) Needs bolt or semi-auto and to include .308 Winchester Magnum, .338 Lapua Magnum, .50 BMG

  94. I haven’t read all the posts but the ones I have read seem to miss a larger and more important point. The 4th Circuit simply empowered itself and other courts to make decisions on weapons (and why stop there?). The legal problem is that courts don’t do that. Legislatures do. Appeals courts adjudicate the law. In this case there was no law or at least not one that permitted the courts to decide what weapons did and did not meet a criteria set by the courts. They heard a case and assigned themselves the role of deciding what legislatures are supposed to decide.

    The precedent is horrifying. Why stop at guns? Why not allow courts to determine what kinds of religions deserve 1st amendment protections and which ones don’t? Let them determine which publications are worthy of free press protections, and which ones aren’t. Furthermore this ruling says that courts can simply rule on anything any way they want without regard to any other branch of government and instruct the citizenry on what they can and can’t do without need of a legislature. This is far more of a problem than simply allowing courts to decide which weapons are suitable for them citizenry and which are not. It is arguable whether or not the state has some valid interest in regulating the types of firearms generally available. The courts just took that discretion away from them and assigned it to themselves..

    • “My authority for weapons carry comes directly from God”

      I see this a lot, and I agree with it.
      Unfortunately, politicians, not God, get to decide just how much of that authority actually rubs off onto you.
      In places like California and Argentina, the answer is, “not much. and less next year.”
      If arrested on a gun charge, you can’t call on God as a witness. Even quoting the 2A won’t get you very far.
      We still need to fight the Good Fight.

  95. If gun owners are to present as a well-regulated militia, maybe the government should subsidize our purchase of firearms, ammunition and training. If we don’t move toward a flat tax or fair tax system, perhaps it could be done in the form of a tax credit. We have been forced to pay for people’s wants for the last eight years, being told that they are rights. Keeping and bearing arms is an actual enumerated right under the Bill of Rights, granted to us by our Creator, yet the previous administration actively worked to infringe upon that right. Maybe the Trump administration could put some of the 6 Billion rounds of ammunition that the Obama Administration stockpiled, back on the market so the American gun owner could afford to practice and become proficient.

  96. Given I live in Colorado. As part of the attacks by the Left here on the Second Amendment, they have placed restrictions on the transfers of firearms. Literally under the law as written and intended, if you are at the range and hand a firearm to a friend to try, you both are felons because that counts as a transfer of ownership and requires a full background check. Also you are required to produce the ORIGINAL sales receipt on demand by any law enforcement official or have the firearm immediately confiscated. Therefore, there perhaps needs to be a bar on state and local restrictions on transfers of militia weapons, parts, accessories, and ammunition to persons otherwise legally qualified to be part of the Unorganized Militia.

    I also have some concerns about Leftist attorneys hair splitting about the word “similar”. Case in point, if you own an FN-FAL would that be similar enough to an M1A to be covered?

  97. Remove the “made in America” designation from the definition of militia rifles in section 3f. Remove the maximum round count for magazines in section 4a and 4b.

  98. Guys, you all got me excited. I wanted badly to believe this was true, and worked feverishly to source this article. As I tracked down the lawyer referenced, it seemed like all looked good.

    But then I looked at the two United States Codes referenced in the text of the Executive Order. The first one checks out, it supports the statement and application of it, in the Executive Order. But the second US Code, doesn’t even exist. The reference cannot be found, a look at Section 109 and Title 30, and there is nothing the is even close. The numbers aren’t off. The reporting is wrong. Sorry guys.

  99. Should basically say “includes any and all weapons used in the past or in current use by the Armed Forces of the United States up to and not including those classified as NBC”.

  100. First off such an order should be inclusive and never exclusive as it will be used against us. It should include all rifles, handguns, projectile firing weapons, explosives and their accessories, including NFA items.

    It should also recognize that if in an “Organized Militia” rather than unorganized, that they be entitled to full use and possession of select fire weapons purposed for military use.

    It would allow citizens to once again regain a small measure of stolen 2A rights that occurred with the 1968 GCA and the last minute Hughes amendment fiasco to the 1986 FOPA.

  101. There is a reference the guns being “made in America.” While I support “buy American”, the selection of truly American-made guns is limited. My Springfield XD is made in Croatia, for example. If there is an ample selection of affordable American-made guns, then no problem. If not, may want to consider rewording. On the other hand, consider the author (not saying he is wrong, just saying it’s still going to be expensive). The Prez is heavy on buy American.

  102. This is the dumbest thing. First look at the definition of the militia specifically the age.
    Second look at section 4 it talks about {as authorized} the constitution does not authorize anything to me It only acknowledges that as a free man these thing are given to me by God therefore they can not be taken away. If man authorizes it. it can be unauthorized. We already have the right as a free man. In the constitution it acknowledges it in the 2nd amendment.

  103. This is a pure BS ruling by the 4th and even contradicts 1939 Miller. Their opinion, “weapons that are most useful in military service” is EXACTLY what the 2A is all about in maintaining the “…security of a Free State”.

  104. What the hell is everybody whining about already? Anything is better than nothing and this EO has already been identified as a stop-gap measure until such cases hit the SCOTUS. Get behind this and support it for all it’s worth. If we STAY FOCUSED on getting the right lawyers in the SCOTUS this may very well be the foundation of future positive changes. The BATFE is already running scared as evidenced by their recent “White Paper” so we need to keep that momentum going.

    • “Anything is better than nothing…”

      Not always true; immigration pause, for example. Still don’t have an EO addressing the flood of people from Syria.

      Sometimes you only get one shot. Additionally, once an EO about gun freedom is issued (and sustained), there well be serious effort for politicians to declare victory, and move on.

  105. I like it, but I agree that it needs to be more inclusive.
    We also need a way to push back against the ACLU weenies who assert that the Second Amendment is only about the National Guard. (That’s what they did in Maine just a few years ago, when testifying against a bill limiting magazine capacity to ten rounds. Their argument wasn’t that the law would run counter to 2A, but that it would lead to “over-incarceration” of violators. Don’t want any bad guys going to jail, y’know.) That was post-Heller I think. I wish they could be told that greater legal minds than theirs have ruled that it’s an individual right, so they should just bugger off.
    As a senior citizen (and veteran), I’d like to see some cites on applicable federal law that would include me in the militia. As someone noted, 10 USC 109 doesn’t seem to exist.
    Finally, don’t circuit court decisions apply only in the particular circuit? My Google Fu eventually found results for Kolbe v. Hogan; it’s being called “poorly reasoned,” among other things.

    • Circuit court opinions only control in that circuits jurisdiction. All the numbered courts have a defined geographical jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit and the D.C. Circuit are different and a bit different respectively, but that’s getting into the weeds.

      Circuit court opinions from other circuit courts are considered persuasive authority. That means if you are in district court in one circuit, you can point to decisions in another circuit and say “we should do that.” If the other guy can point to a decision in your circuit that is on point, then he can say “we have to do that.”

      • “Circuit court opinions only control in that circuits jurisdiction.”

        But the 4th rejection of the immigration EO applied nationwide?

        • That was the 9th Circuit. It upheld the injunction preventing the enforcement of the travel ban EO. Whether or not a court can issue a nation wide injuntion is debatable. It’s something Congress should step in and fix. They should pass a statute saying either a court can, can’t, or in what situations a court can and cannot.

          Precedent – an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

          In the American legal context, precedent is a decision interpreting the law, either constitutional, statutory, or regulatory. We have persuasive and controlling precedent.

          Persuasive precedent is a decision from outside the court’s jurisdiction, such as a decision in the Western District of Texas or the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals used in a case in the Eastern District of Texas.

          Controlling precedent, for the same Texas court, would be a decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

  106. 1) “President and Commander in Chief of the Militia ” needs to be changed to “President of the United States of America”. Part of the reason for the 2nd Amendment is to, if need be, remove a tyrannical president or government from power. Having the POTUS listed as the “Commander in Chief of the Militia” makes a possibly needed revolution difficult to justify.

    2) “(f) “Militia Rifles” shall mean the firearms designated in Section 4 that are made in America and suitable for use in self-defense, community defense, defense of States and defense of the Nation.” There are weapons (rifles, handguns, shotguns, other firearms, that aren’t made in America, that can, and should be considered as useable in the defense of this country and it’s people.

    3) “(e)  “Militia Purposes” shall mean training, practice and preparedness which could improve the ability of a citizen to act, and to be armed in case of a need to act, as a current or future member of a local, State or National organization commanded by government officials and responsive to a physical threat.  Appropriate organizations include those commanded by an elected county or city Sheriff; those commanded by the Governor of a State through officers of that State’s  Defense Force as authorized by Title 30, Section 109 of the United States Code, or through officers of that State’s National Guard; and organizations commanded by the President through officers of the Active or Reserve components of U.S. Armed Forces.”

    This paragraph is more than a little confusing. It seems to preclude the average citizen who isn’t currently active in any government run or sponsored “Militia” or “Military Branch” from acting in defense of himself or others with any “Military Style Weapon”. Remember “The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed”, this includes ANY weapon for ANY person, who chooses to own such a weapon, whether or NOT he, or she, is part of any government, or otherwise organized “Militia” or “Military Branch”.

    And yes, I understand the implication of that statement, as written, and so did our forefathers, for that is how the 2nd Amendment was written.

  107. The last time I read the Constitution, the Second Amendment placed no restrictions on type, caliber, operating system or number of arms THE PEOPLE may own. No ‘law’ nullifies the clear letter and intent of that document, no ‘opinion’ colluded on by a panel of politically appointed black-collar criminals overrides it, and no ‘executive order’ (which has no force in law) perverts it. Further, any such ‘executive order’ or ‘act of congress’ that allegedly affects it only sets precedent for further ‘modifications’ or ‘restrictions’ by any branch of the government.

    The preamble to the Bill of Rights clearly and unequivocally states these “…declaratory and restrictive clauses” are specifically enacted “…to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the federal government’s] powers”. Any attempt by ‘government’ – any level of government, or any branch thereof – is just that: An abuse of its powers.

    • If merely asserting the second amendment would avail anything, it would have been done already. We are where we are because the courts have ruled the second amendment is not absolute, and the courts have ruled that the government can surly infringe on the right of the people to be able to throw off a tyrannical government. Done, and done.

      The only hope for restoration of the second amendment is to force congress to remove gun ownership cases from judicial review.

      Not happening.

  108. We know that Barry Obuma was a plant of the Billionaire George Soros, who took Barry under his wing when Barry was just (14) fourteen years old, it was then that Soros’ put his indoctrination plan into effect. He Soros’ had a lot of help from well known Communist in the community, Bill Ayers, Farrakhan who is an American religious activist, and social commentator, he is also the leader of the religious group Nation of Islam and served as a minster of several Mosques. The NOI was disbanded and is now the American society of Muslims, run by Warith Deen Muhammad who oversees 130 Mosque in America, so the young Barry Sotoroe spent a lot of time at various Mosque and had many Muslim teachers.
    Barry or Obama or whoever the Hell he is, has never, ever had the will or desire to abide by our Constitution or up hold the oath he took, people have finally opened their eyes to who he really is and what his mission has been since he was shoved down our throats. President Trump is one very smart and intelligent man, and his taking the role as leader of the Militia is probably he smartest thing anyone could do at this time, every Democrat now in office are Americas enemies, along with the handful of Republican traitors.

  109. I think this executive order plays right into the Leftists hands and confirms that our semis are military grade firearms. At the very least they need to add “as well as personal and family protection and sport” right after “for militia purposes” in the below paragraph.
    I personally think this EO should be scrapped for one more straight forward based on the peoples right to be armed with long guns equal to that of the government military just as the people were when our framers wrote the Bill of Rights into the Constitution.

    “Section 4. Designation of Militia Rifles. That the following firearms and accessories are authorized and appropriate for individual citizens to keep and bear for Militia purposes under the Constitution and the laws of the United States:”

  110. The problems that I have with this E.O.is that it applies only to American made guns. There are plenty of foreign made guns that should be protected. e.g. AK-47, Mosin-Nagant,
    What about hand guns? per cummiefornia semi-auto handguns nitch goot
    Wally

    • “The problems that I have with this E.O.is that it applies only to American made guns. There are plenty of foreign made guns that should be protected. e.g. AK-47, Mosin-Nagant,”

      Most Mosins are covered under C&R rules. It’s not that hard to get the license.
      Heck, even early AR-15s are C&R now.

  111. Well informed gun owners should recognize that actions meant to protect our rights can also ultimately limit our rights. The supreme court has already issued opinions that seem to limit the 2A to ONLY military style firearms and that is a problem, NOT a victory. That interpretation was used to rule that short barrel shotguns are not covered by the 2A, but it was also poorly argued. This EO would only cover a small subset of firearms that are protected by the 2A. It ultimately claims that the 2A specifically protects those few firearms listed. The arguments in this EO would likely be used by anti-gun lawyers to LIMIT the 2A in future cases. I STRONGLY oppose this EO and all freedom minded individuals should do the same.

  112. This would be a bit stronger if there were a passage in here which outlawed the creation of a registry for Blue states to track the Militia style weapons with. You know those clowns would try a roundup if they got their next goofball in there.

    • “This would be a bit stronger if there were a passage in here which outlawed the creation of a registry for Blue states to track the Militia style weapons with. You know those clowns would try a roundup if they got their next goofball in there.”

      I seriously doubt any state would try a wholesale gun confiscation; they can read social media as well as anyone.
      On a smaller scale, it’s already being done. Several states, most notably, California, have rules/laws allowing confiscations from certain classes of people, most not adjudicated to be prohibited persons.
      I have already outlined how places like CA, with registration schemes, can take guns out of circulation with no direct confrontations. It just takes time.

  113. Boy howdy…what an ideal discussion to respond with my ongoing 2-part blog series, ‘Militia Carry’. Here is Part 1 (Part 2 is due out on Saturday, Mar 11, 2017)

    ~~~

    The U.S. Constitution is America’s “supreme Law of the Land” by which We the People create, define, and severely limit our federal servant, all three branches. It is a law of limitation against arrogation and usurpation by Washington D.C. – but in it, we also charge ourselves with one single duty. In Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, We the People stipulate our only duty in the U.S. Constitution, that is MILITIA DUTY. We are supposed to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”. That first aspect can conceivably include assisting in subpoena, arrest, or sequestration of lawless tyrants in government service.

    In my last 2-part blog article, ‘The Responsibles’, I explained how millions of older Americans are working for our domestic enemy; spending hours online and on the radio every day consuming Fear Porn, complaining, and rehashing the problems instead of taking responsibility.

    Although the average sixth-grade student can comprehend this clause of the Constitution, there are five groups who are making it impossible to have a rational discussion about the one constitutional duty of every American to volunteer for law enforcement, riot control, border control and military defense.

    First, you have Richard Mack’s position at Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA). The name should say it all; if most sheriffs and peace officers are unconstitutional sheriffs and peace officers, whose fault is this?

    Richard has always maintained that the sheriff is the highest constitutional law enforcement officer in this republic. I find this nowhere in the U.S. Constitution; but I just showed you where We the People do charge ourselves, as unpaid Militia, to “execute the laws of the Union”. So the CSPOA has usurped the authority and duty of the Citizen Militia, and is claiming it for paid ‘law enforcement’.

    Yes, we need sheriffs to be on board with local Militia; possibly tasked as an integral part of it. But from the very beginning of our Republic, when paid professional arms-bearers have mixed with volunteer Citizen Militia, there have been turf wars and sparks. Government employees want ‘civilians’ (a term of disparagement, by the way) to believe that they are irreplaceable, even when they act as thugs when pulling you over or shooting your dog.

    Secondly, you have the position of Oath Keepers. Although AmericaAgain! made every effort to support this organization, it is built on a ludicrous principle: that a small percentage of ‘law enforcement’ officers and former military employees promise not to shoot their sovereigns, take our firearms, or violate our Constitution. Those who want to join Oath Keepers must be a present or former paid ‘professional’; the ‘civilian’ can only join as a second-class member.

    Thirdly, you have the position of military careerists with an obvious conflict of interests. Like the Roman legionnaires of old, these ‘professionals’ expect free education, a paycheck and benefits for life, and the automatic salutation “thank you for your service” from every mere ‘civilian’ because they deployed to take, control, and hold every oilfield and pipeline route in the Middle East over the past century, in clear violation of the Constitution they claim to be defending.

    According to this sub-population of America, for my very liberty to write this, I must thank the military. What ever happened to actually reading, understanding, and obeying Article I, Section 8, Clauses 12-16 of the U.S. Constitution.

    Fourthly, Bundy Jumpers and vigilante groups call themselves ‘unorganized militia’ but instead of working to restore the constitutional Militia in every community, they only help stigmatize Militia by doing one-shot PR circuses that make gun-grabbers, the military subculture, and ‘law enforcement’ careerists laugh at Citizen Militia.

    For constitutionalists, this is about rule of law and our future as a civilization. For ‘professionals’ bearing arms, it’s about paychecks, benefits, and personal pride and glory.

    The Founding Fathers took history into account when they designed the volunteer Citizen Militia. They knew that the king’s troops – or today’s growing armies of paramilitary police, sheriffs, state troopers, FBI, federal marshals, DHS thugs, BATF thugs, BLM thugs, multi-generational military families and others – could only be kept from destroying liberty by We the People remaining well-regulated (that means being regular in every community!), well-armed, and vigilant.

    When We the People begin to perform Tactical Civics™ – our stipulated duties that we set out in America’s highest law — all those who draw a government paycheck for carrying a weapon will feel their careers threatened. Those careerists and even veterans on benefits will prefer that the American ‘civilian’ just stays fearful and clueless.

    Fifthly, into this maelstrom of deceit that keeps Americans from restoring the U.S. Constitution, we have the five-million-member NRA, the purported bastion of the Second Amendment. We will address that 146-year-old fraudulent donation magnet in Part 2.

    Mr. Trump has made many promises. The Deep State and its minions in DC organized crime including the GOP leadership, as well as the Soros-Obama communist underworld, will never allow the President to keep those promises; Washington DC is resisting America with all its might.

    Regarding law and order on urban streets, Mr. Trump is tasking the unconstitutional DHS to join the DOJ to interdict transnational drug cartels. But the real answer is to restore the Constitution; bring back the Militia of the Several States in every community, rather than further beef up George Bush II’s lawless Gestapo!

    Mr. Mack, all sheriffs need to be constitutional. Mr. Rhodes, all government employees by law must be ‘oath keepers’. NRA, it is the constitutional duty of the Citizen Militia to “execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions”.

    America’s self-worshipping military subculture, come to grips with the Constitution. You deserve no special treatment for doing the job you contracted for, and are paid to do. Yes, I know I will come under withering condemnation by all those whose allegiance to the military is higher than their allegiance to God or the Constitution. They’ll have to get over it; I’m defending the Constitution so they can have the liberty tomorrow to keep receiving those taxpayer checks!

    The ones that deserve to hear “thank you for your service” are those veterans who understand the ruthless, lawless nature of their former employer, the Military Industrial Complex, and seek to stop the nonsense, and also the men and women who preserve, protect and defend the U.S. Constitution without pay, special privileges, benefits, or recognition — including constitutional Militia duty.

    In Part 2, we will show you the seedy history of the NRA – a political action machine that has collected billions of dollars in dues, donations, and government grants for over 145 years yet has not taken a single step to restore a well-regulated Militia – the stated purpose of the Second Amendment. Then, we will discuss how every gun rights and Second Amendment group we have found so far, has been addressing the wrong subjects all along, playing into the gun-grabbers hands; and how AmericaAgain! Minutemen™ plans to restore Militia Carry – the only form of ‘carry’ that sane and patriotic Americans should seek.

    Copyright 2017 AmericaAgain.net

  114. Also: Militia Duty is only one-third for what we at AmericaAgain! call Tactical Civics™; the other two aspects are the AmericaAgain! Indictment Engine™ to generate presentments to the Grand Jury against the felon in public office (we speak about that historic mechanism elsewhere), and the resurrection of the true Citizen’s Grand Jury: that is, the highest authority in American courts.

    Read the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s excellent opinion for the majority in the 1992 case U.S. v. Williams, where Scalia educates most Americans (including most federal judges!) on the plain FACT of American law, that the Grand Jury is completely independent of the prosecutor and judge – and that is the entire POINT of the Citizens’ Grand Jury for over 1000 years.

    When every community in America has at least a critical mass (half of 1% is adequate in most communities) of its responsible citizens living responsibly – that is, practicing Tactical Civics™ as a fact of 21st century life — the absurd comments here (yes, some of them are absurd!) and asinine ideas like this ludicrous executive order, will be just a funny artifact of our government-school-induced Dark Age. A thing of the past.

    -DMZ-

  115. My suggestion is making sure that the “training” be recognized that until such time as the “Congress” carry’s out it’s duty and Power to design the SOP training of the Unorganized Militia. The power to decide such falls back to the People as all such uncarried out government constitutional duties do.

  116. How about instead of listing firearm names just give it a “Militia Suitable test” to be:
    1. Must have a pistol grip
    2. Must accept detachable standard or greater capacity magazines or belt fed
    3. Bayonet lug (optional to be determined by militia member)
    4. Folding, extending or solid stock (to be determined by individual militiamen)
    5. Semi-automatic*
    Or
    6. Any firearm that is a semi-automatic derivative, variant or clone of a firearm that is or has been in use with the US Armed Forces or any Law Enforcement Agency of any political subdivision within the United States.
    Or
    7. Any firearm named to or included in appendix as being particularly suitable for militia purposes. Firearms may be added by senators or Federal Department Heads but once added may NOT be removed except by legislation. Any firearm named shall be considered to include all variants and models of a substantially similar or clone nature.

    Any firearm that meets these criteria will be deemed suitable for militia use and as such exempt from local regulation if intended, held, owned or used for militia purposes as well as exempt from sporting purposes clauses for import purposes.

    *(I disagree with the Hughes amendment but seriously guys this is the only way this has even a chance of passing)

  117. Needs to provide that militia units may elect their own officers, subject to review by an elected committee of safety.

    Should also repurpose selective service boards to recruit, organize, and train militia units.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *