Proposed EO to designate certain rifles for 'militia purposes'..

[MikeyCNY]

At first I read this as an actual leaked EO, but then I saw it was just a proposal by a Virginia lawyer... I don't see it happening, and even if it did, the courts would quash it faster than Chucky Schumer could get in front of a camera. (okay maybe not that fast..)

Proposed Executive Order Designating Certain Rifles for 'Militia Purposes' - The Truth About Guns

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.

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 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 easily be expanded.)

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

 

[redtail]

Please be true.

FUAC

 

[Exonautic]

Please,Please,Please for all that is good in the world we live in, do not be a hoax looking to get peoples hopes up.

 

[Phazer]

NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

STOP with the executive orders already!

I want legislation written by congress and signed by the president into LAW.

Executive orders only survive until the next president reverses them. Actions taken under executive orders that do more than just enforce existing laws actually undermine our entire governmental system. Executive orders remove the predictability and stability from our nation of laws and makes us subject to the whims of the chief executive. That is not how our country is supposed to function.

I despised Obama for his unconstitutional executive orders. I don't mind using executive orders to reverse those illegal actions. Beyond that, let us return to an organized governmental system.

 

[STS556]

Wow!!! That has got to be the first time in my life where any politician on any level actually recommended the citizens of America keep an AR15 or any other semi auto for self defense.

 

[MikeyCNY]

Wow!!! That has got to be the first time in my life where any politician on any level actually recommended the citizens of America keep an AR15 or any other semi auto for self defense.

It's an attorney's hope/dream/recommendation, there's no way to know if President Trump has even seen it.

 

[Phazer]

It's an attorney's hope/dream/recommendation, there's no way to know if President Trump has even seen it.

And he won't.

If you thought the 9th Circus overturned the travel ban executive order quickly, they'd set a new record issuing an injunction against the "militia rifle" executive order. They'd probably have the text of the injunction completed before the order was even signed. Then, seconds after the executive order was signed, the 9th Circus would issue the injunction.

 

[Phauxtoe]

use the Exec Order to get the ball rolling,
then follow up with the Supremes after they have the votes to make it right!

 

[Cooolone]

Executive Orders do not create law and cannot reclassify "ARMS" which is a protected Right. Only the legislative branch can create a law... I agree, give it a break with this crap already. Everyone take a deep breath and just count 10...

 

[Phazer]

I agree, give it a break with this crap already. Everyone take a deep breath and just count 10...

Yes. The Left spent almost 100 years trying to implement single-payer healthcare. We can take 4 years to sure up our 2A rights with real laws and Supreme Court precedent.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Can an EO overrule a circuit court ruling?

 

[Truebeliever]

No, this would not work. The individual states would be able to "regulate" the militias so they can determine which rifles are for miltas for their states.

And executive orders should not be able to act as if they are laws.

 

[Grimscale]

I don't see how 'reclassifying' a firearm to say it is intended for militia use would make any difference to the (fake) Laws created by anti-American State Legislatures.
The 2A does not state a firearm HAS to be for militia use to be covered by the 2A, that is merely one (DAMN good) reason.

If this were true, then wouldn't Laws prohibiting the forming of a militia also be illegal under the 2nd?

 

[Phazer]

I don't see how 'reclassifying' a firearm to say it is intended for militia use would make any difference to the (fake) Laws created by anti-American State Legislatures.

Correct.

After all, a "militia rifle" is no more a real thing than an "assault weapon."

 

[MikeyCNY]

Executive Orders do not create law and cannot reclassify "ARMS" which is a protected Right. Only the legislative branch can create a law... I agree, give it a break with this crap already. Everyone take a deep breath and just count 10...

I was just sharing the idea to promote discussion... originally I had RUMOR in the topic or put PROPROSED in caps. Maybe I should have put in Off Topic.

 

[stuck in ny]

Trump should make us a swiss system. You get issued a rifle (even if your actual role in a hypothetical call up might be lmg or mortar or something else). You get issued a sealed spamcan of ammo. Beyond that, you're free to shoot you "waffen" as long as you keep it clean and the ammo is on your dime. In every small town, have a combined range/arsenal with more ammo, support weapons, and a stockpile of DIAS's to distribute for a call up.

 

[Exonautic]

Trump should make us a swiss system. You get issued a rifle (even if your actual role in a hypothetical call up might be lmg or mortar or something else). You get issued a sealed spamcan of ammo. Beyond that, you're free to shoot you "waffen" as long as you keep it clean and the ammo is on your dime.

Sorry but the last thing i want is the liberal college kids i go to school with fighting our battles. Not only would we lose, it would probably be a pretty embarrassing defeat.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Fake. Don't fall for this crap.

 

[vanderblack]

If, and that is a big if, this is true, it would show that Trump is paying attention and intends to try and protect our rights. I personally think it is 100% legit. Hey, I read it on the internet, it must be true.

 

[Blimey]

Pretty clever really.

 

[Criticalt]

How about ALL arms falling under the 2nd amendment and keeping and bearing them shall not be infringed.

 

[John Stark]

NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

STOP with the executive orders already!

I want legislation written by congress and signed by the president into LAW.

Executive orders only survive until the next president reverses them. Actions taken under executive orders that do more than just enforce existing laws actually undermine our entire governmental system. Executive orders remove the predictability and stability from our nation of laws and makes us subject to the whims of the chief executive. That is not how our country is supposed to function.

I despised Obama for his unconstitutional executive orders. I don't mind using executive orders to reverse those illegal actions. Beyond that, let us return to an organized governmental system.

Executive orders are not unconstitutional if they are taken under existing Constitutional authority, principle, enumerated powers, and so on, as well as statutory authority granted under the US Code by Congress.

The President of the United States as Commander in Chief of the United States military has power over the organized and disorganized militia, as well as the standing forces authorized by the Constitution and Congressional statute. It is not unlimited power, but it is deep and wide when it comes to protecting US citizens.

Furthermore, the Attorney General of the US is not, in fact, the top law enforcement official of the nation; the buck stops with POTUS, and any official that does not follow his orders, unless those orders are blatantly against the Constitution or in flagrant disregard for US Code, can be, and ought to be, fired immediately. POTUS is the chief law enforcement official of the nation, end of story.

We don't need another law passed. Do we need to amend the Constitution and add in another, extra-special Second Amendment?

The Second Amendment is the controlling law. It has been upheld clearly and decisively in Heller and McDonald, both holding that the RKBA is an individual Right, and that, while participation in a militia is not the criteria to determine who can and cannot exercise that Right, Heller did not divorce the notion of the "average Joe" owning weapons from the potential necessity of militia force being needed to defend the US against enemies foreign and domestic.

POTUS has a long train of court cases, cited in Heller, going back nearly all the way to the Founding of this nation on his side. He has the McDonald decision, which "incorporated" the Right to the States.

US Code, as a matter of statute, makes it a felony to violate the civil rights of American citizens, and a further felony to enter into a conspiracy to violate the rights of American citizens, dovetailing perfectly with the 14th Amendment.

That is exactly how the Feds broke the strangle hold of segregation in the southern states during the civil rights era.

POTUS can, and indeed should, order his Federal agents into states like NY and Commiefornia, and initiate investigations. He could have his AG pursue charges against State and local officials for violating and conspiring to violate the Federal civil rights of the citizens of those states with regards to the RKBA. State officials who fall afoul of US Code on this matter could indeed be charged under RICO as well.

If the State and local officials resisted, he could, in fact, send in troops to quell rebellion and restore peace and order, along with the rights of citizens. Indeed, POTUS could issue a call up of American citizens to put down insurrection in a rebellious and law-offending State, temporarily organizing the unorganized militia to protect themselves and their communities from the depredations of domestic enemies in their midst.

As acting commander of all US military forces, POTUS has the Constitutional authority to ensure that all forces, potential and actual, organized and disorganized, are prepared to defend the nation to the best of their ability.

He does not need further legislation or approval from Congress to do this, especially if he is not appropriating any funds to ensure that the civil rights of those who wish to exercise their RKBA for their own safety and that of the nation.

Agencies like the FBI are already charged with investigating civil rights violations, and enforcing the law whenever an investigation indicates that such are or have been undertaken.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental, bedrock Right of the People, and the Second Amendment serves as a restriction on the Government from Infringing upon that Right, NOT as a restriction upon the People.

An executive order is nothing more than the President's command, with all due authority, to Federal agencies to enforce specific law, and the difference between protecting the enumerated Rights of Americans versus the blatantly illegal actions of the Obamanation and his executive orders is the difference between night and day. Issuing an executive order is not an attempt to write or correct law when it is done properly and in accordance with the law in the first place.

Furthermore, the POTUS and the Government in general has the power, as well as the Constitutional duty, to not only enforce the laws of the United States, but to protect its citizens from foreign powers, domestic enemies, criminal acts, and so on. Failure to protect the Rights of American citizens, especially on our own sovereign soil and territory, is a gross dereliction of duty and an impeachable offense. It is NOT the whim of the executive if he enforces the law; that is merely the right use of the power given him by the People, and by our laws duly enacted and passed by our representatives.

The authority to deal with this matter exists in the powers of the executive office through law enforcement, according to laws already in US Code. This isn't even remotely disputable.

The notion, as you've posited that, "Actions taken under executive orders that do more than just enforce existing laws actually undermine our entire governmental system..." is ludicrous if there is existing law and legal precedent to take executive action. The law is there, and the legal precedent is there as well.

There are NO States' Rights issues involved with enforcing the free exercise of fundamental Constitutional Rights under the provisions of the 14th Amendment and the various criminal statutes that allow the Feds to investigate, arrest, prosecute, and jail those who violate the Civil Rights of American citizens. None.

There is no legal standing for States to continue to restrict the Second Amendment rights of US citizens after Heller and McDonald. None whatsoever.

And it was precisely those Constitutional provisions and the statutory authority that sounded the death knell of Segregation, by force if necessary.

The only thing that is lacking is the will to enforce it on the part of the proper officials, and the outcry of Americans denied their Rights to have it done in the first place.

So how about enough of this nonsense of allowing the United States to continue to be balkanized under the tyranny of State governments that refuse US citizens the exercise of their Federal Rights.

For the first time since Reagan we have a POTUS who might have some guts and the will to use the power of his office, once he gets settled in and has his cabinet confirmed and executive officials in place. He can apply his authority and powers to this problem just as soon as he's ready to do so.

And if he doesn't, he's no different than any of the rest of them.

 

[Gunright]

Wow!!! That has got to be the first time in my life where any politician on any level actually recommended the citizens of America keep an AR15 or any other semi auto for self defense.

Not the same thing, but the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 (May 8th, 1792, passed by the first congress) required that all able bodied men "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints,..."

Link: The Militia Act of 1792

 

[togmaster]

NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

STOP with the executive orders already!

I want legislation written by congress and signed by the president into LAW.

Executive orders only survive until the next president reverses them. Actions taken under executive orders that do more than just enforce existing laws actually undermine our entire governmental system. Executive orders remove the predictability and stability from our nation of laws and makes us subject to the whims of the chief executive. That is not how our country is supposed to function.

I despised Obama for his unconstitutional executive orders. I don't mind using executive orders to reverse those illegal actions. Beyond that, let us return to an organized governmental system.

This X 1000.

 

[JosERW]

Yes. The Left spent almost 100 years trying to implement single-payer healthcare. We can take 4 years to sure up our 2A rights with real laws and Supreme Court precedent.

With what case? The SCOTUS will deny cert to Kolbe. Then what? All cases are dead, as dead as our rights.

 

[JosERW]

Phazer is spot on. At the very least we need a lawsuit that can reach SCOTUS. There has to be something Trump or the AG can do, especially considering the the absolute dishonesty in the 4CA's ruling.

Why can't the feds sue for states violating Heller?

 

[BerettaGuy]

Can an EO overrule a circuit court ruling?

The real question should be:
Can a Court Ruling make law?
Can a EO change or make Law
Can Congress change or make a Court Decision

The answer in all three should be NO
However, the past 8 years has blurred the defined powers of the Three Branches.
They all need to be Bitch Slapped.

Congress makes law
Executive Branch enforces law
Courts execute law

 

[spat]

I don't see how 'reclassifying' a firearm to say it is intended for militia use would make any difference to the (fake) Laws created by anti-American State Legislatures.
The 2A does not state a firearm HAS to be for militia use to be covered by the 2A, that is merely one (DAMN good) reason.

If this were true, then wouldn't Laws prohibiting the forming of a militia also be illegal under the 2nd?

One could make a reasonable argument that the 2A only protects arms suitable for militia use. So, if they wanted to ban muzzle loaders, and antiques without commercially available ammunition for instance, they could. What they cant bad (legally anyway) are weapons that could conceivably be issued by a government to its agents.

If some accessory or weapon was deemed too dangerous for issue (maybe some POS pot metal pistol known for blowing up in the shooters face for instance) they could reasonably claim that wasn't protected either, since it wouldn't be suitable for militia use.

There are lots of arms that you could make a case aren't protected, but that case would *have* to be based on the argument that they are *not* "military style".

What they cannot ban are weapons similar to current military issue (ARs and AKs, etc...). The cool old stuff gets protected because, why ban a muzzle loader when you have to allow an AR.

NYs law prohibiting militias is absolutely a direct violation of the 2A though.

 

[John Stark]

One could make a reasonable argument that the 2A only protects arms suitable for militia use. So, if they wanted to ban muzzle loaders, and antiques without commercially available ammunition for instance, they could. What they cant bad (legally anyway) are weapons that could conceivably be issued by a government to its agents.

If some accessory or weapon was deemed too dangerous for issue (maybe some POS pot metal pistol known for blowing up in the shooters face for instance) they could reasonably claim that wasn't protected either, since it wouldn't be suitable for militia use.

There are lots of arms that you could make a case aren't protected, but that case would *have* to be based on the argument that they are *not* "military style".

What they cannot ban are weapons similar to current military issue (ARs and AKs, etc...). The cool old stuff gets protected because, why ban a muzzle loader when you have to allow an AR.

NYs law prohibiting militias is absolutely a direct violation of the 2A though.

No, one could not make this case at all. This retarded, leftist logic was thoroughly repudiated by Scalia writing for the majority in Heller, which is the controlling decision with regards to the Second Amendment unless and until it is overturned.

Scalia deftly threaded the needle on this very subject to form the basis of his argument for an individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Weapons have other, obvious lawful uses for the individual besides militia or other military service, including (and most importantly) the right to self-defense (an individual Right), hunting, collecting, target and other sport shooting, innovation and tinkering, commercial uses, economic considerations, and so on. Furthermore, Arms are not limited to firearms.

Scalia did not repudiate the militia portion of the Second Amendment; he affirmed the individual Right to "bearable arms" for lawful purposes, and used that as the basis to show the Founders' thinking on how that is applicable to national, state, and local defense.

It is not an either/or. Its a both/and.

Thus, if a serious crime was in commission, or a war or domestic disturbance broke out, the "regular Joe" would grab "what is at hand" to protect himself, his family, property, neighbors, community, state, and nation, as applicable and in the face of the prevailing situation.

While it may not be optimal to grab a single shot rifle or a bolt gun, typically used by civilians for hunting or competition shooting, if that is what is at hand to defend hearth and home, that is what one will grab. In any serious conflagration, anyone with a weapon in their hand and training to use it offers a better chance of dealing with a situation than unarmed idiots who refuse to take personal responsibility for themselves and their own communities.

The Right to individual self-defense is what the notion of the militia is predicated upon in the first place, and this entire line of so-called "reasoning" that you offer up here has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the matter at hand.

For purposes of national security, the President, with Heller in hand, can uphold both the Right to Keep and Bear weapons that are traditionally for use in hunting, sporting and so on, while at the same time demand, with serious consequences for disobeying the law and SCOTUS precedent, that States stop Infringing upon the nation's ability to repel invaders, put down insurrection, and quell domestic mass violence or civil unrest such as rioting and looting where the police and other forces may not be able to stop what is going on.

Recent examples of domestic disturbance include Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte, and Berkeley, where police and other forces were either unable to stop, or we told not to interfere, with rioting, murder, arson and other forms of property damage, or other public safety concerns such as commerce and the free movement of US citizens. Law and order was put on hold by politicians.

It is for just these types of situations that other lawful uses of weaponry prepare us for action, and both are 100% protected by our Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Americans would know this, and know what a total farce nearly every anti-Liberty effort to control Arms amounts to in light of Heller, if they actually bothered to read the decision and the other controlling Constitutional principles and statutory authority that governs them in the first place.

No new laws, and no new arguments are needed at all. The matter has been decided by the highest court in the land.

All of the legal remedies that are necessary for securing our Rights are waiting there for all of us, like toys left behind by children in a sand box. All we need do is pick them up and make use of them, and there will be Liberty.

 

[stuck in ny]

One could make a reasonable argument that the 2A only protects arms suitable for militia use. So, if they wanted to ban muzzle loaders, and antiques without commercially available ammunition for instance, they could. What they cant bad (legally anyway) are weapons that could conceivably be issued by a government to its agents.

If some accessory or weapon was deemed too dangerous for issue (maybe some POS pot metal pistol known for blowing up in the shooters face for instance) they could reasonably claim that wasn't protected either, since it wouldn't be suitable for militia use.

There are lots of arms that you could make a case aren't protected, but that case would *have* to be based on the argument that they are *not* "military style".

What they cannot ban are weapons similar to current military issue (ARs and AKs, etc...). The cool old stuff gets protected because, why ban a muzzle loader when you have to allow an AR.

NYs law prohibiting militias is absolutely a direct violation of the 2A though.

We should form a militia, just call it something else, maby "constitutional fish and game club" or the "Desert storm reenacting association"