Previous Post
Next Post

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.



– – – – – – –


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


March __, 2017






Previous Post
Next Post


  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 ( 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

  6. So no AKs? No 40 round AR mags? Why not just say “any/all semi auto rifle and accessories” and cover everything?

    • 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.

  7. 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.

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

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

    • When the objective is to shove boots in the faces of lefty cucks, I’m not too picky as to the means.

    • If they can use EOs to kill the Second by a thousand tiny cuts, we can restore the Second the exact same way.

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

  12. “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.

  13. “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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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!

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.