Site icon The Truth About Guns

‘Clarifying’ the Second Amendment by Executive Order?

Previous Post
Next Post

Girls Just Wanna Have Guns has an interesting piece by guest blogger Chris Wagoner; DEAR AMERICA: Should Donald Trump ACCEPT This Executive Order on the Second Amendment? In it he suggests that the President use his executive powers to “clarify” the meaning of the Second Amendment, the meat of the order being:

Section 3. Definitions. As used in this order, the following definitions will apply:

– The term “militia” is as defined in Title 10, Section 311 United States Code. Inclusive of State Statute definitions.

– The term “bear arms” is to include the physical possession and carrying, both concealed and openly, of firearms of the type defined herein.

– The term “self-defense” shall include actions taken by citizens to defend themselves and fellow citizens from physical attack.

– The term “military-style arms” will include those types of firearms that would serve well for use in the military defense of the nation, to include firearms that have been used in the past and present in the United States’ active military forces and fully functional replicas of said weapons, both semi-automatic and fully automatic. This includes both pistols and rifles.

I have two relatively minor and one major quibble with this executive order (hereinafter EO because yes, I am just that lazy), the first minor one being that it is United States Code Title 10, Chapter 12, § 246 which defines the composition and classes of the militia.

My second minor quibble is the age and sex restrictions in § 246; you can be sure that that antis would seize on these to argue that A) the EO is sexist and ageist and therefore unconstitutional and 2} the moment that a militia member turns 45 they would have to turn in their guns.

Which brings us to my major problem with Chris’s EO: although it is, to quote the antis, a “good first step,” it doesn’t go nearly far enough and provides the antis with far too much wiggle room to limit our natural, fundamental, and inalienable, human, individual, civil and Constitutional, right to own and carry the weapon of our choice.

First, by limiting “bear arms” to possession and carrying, the antis will argue (and probably find some quisling judges to agree) that this does not include ownership, merely possession. In other words, you can’t own these scary guns and keep them in your house, they need to be locked up in an armory. But you can certainly check them out whenever you want, as long as it is Monday – Friday, 9AM to 3PM, excepting lunch times (10AM to 2PM), all federal, state, and local holidays, and as long as the LEO in charge is not needed for other more important duties like meter enforcement.

Also, when you go to pick up “your” militia weapon, don’t forget to bring three forms of photo ID as well as a credit card for the $50 “check-out fee,” the $1500 “security deposit” (90% of which will be refunded after a thorough inspection to ensure the weapon is undamaged), and the $75 “check-in fee.”

We also can’t risk firing inexpensive poor quality ammunition in these state-owned weapons, so you’ll have to purchase the government inspected and approved militia-grade ammo at only $5/round. And of course, since all of us gun nuts keep talking about how much ammunition we need to practice with, the minimum allowable purchase would be 500 rounds so you can get in the practice you need.

In addition, once the ammo is out of government hands it obviously can’t be certified as “militia quality” any longer, so unused ammunition can’t be returned for a refund. Nor can it be used for later practice sessions, so every time you want to practice with “your” weapon, you’ll need to buy more.

Next, limiting the definition self-defense to responding to physical attack gives the antis the opportunity to argue that you must wait for such an attack before you can claim self-defense. In other words, if someone comes at you with a knife you can’t shoot them until they have actually struck you. I have also heard some anti-self-defense people argue that rape without violence is not a deadly attack, therefore people should not be permitted to use deadly force to repel or stop a sexual assault.

Finally limiting militia weapons to “firearms that have been used in the past and present in the United States’ active military forces” can be interpreted far too restrictively for my taste. Let’s change that to firearms and accessories that have been used in the past or present in the United States’ or any other nation’s regular or irregular military forces, including all copies, duplicates, variants, and fully functional replicas of said weapons, both semi-automatic and fully automatic. This includes pistols, shotguns and rifles.

And just for fun, I would throw in one more bullet point:

– The definition of “sporting purposes” shall include all types of sport and competitive shooting and all “military style” and semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns are hereby deemed suitable for sport shooting.

Now if we could get the President sign such a revised executive order, that would be a “good first step.”

Previous Post
Next Post
Exit mobile version