Proposed Executive Order Designates Militia Rifles For Citizen Ownership

AR-15 Rifle - A Brief History & Historical Time Line
Proposed Executive Order Designates Militia Rifles For Citizen Ownership
Showdown: The Looming Crisis Over Gun Control
Showdown: The Looming Crisis Over Gun Control : https://goo.gl/Gl9l3Q

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- According to author Lenden Eakin : “The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly found that the Second Amendment protects civilian ownership of firearms for Militia purposes, but has not defined those purposes. Federal Courts of Appeal have upheld “Assault Weapons” bans without respecting Militia purposes as recently as last week (4th Circuit).

The President, as Commander in Chief of the Militia under the Constitution, has full authority to designate the arms for people to bear in order to achieve Militia purposes.”

Mr. Eakin has practiced law for over thirty years, has experience as a Militia officer (National Guard and State Defense Force) and wrote the book Showdown: The Looming Crisis Over Gun Control (Mascot Books).

He also says: “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.”

What follows is and example of the proposed Executive Order:

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 as self-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 subdivisions on 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 easily be expanded or replaced by a broad definition.)

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

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

Donald J. Trump
THE WHITE HOUSE
March __, 2017

  • 72 thoughts on “Proposed Executive Order Designates Militia Rifles For Citizen Ownership

    1. This is great except for the “magazines of up to twenty/thirty round capacities.” Instead, it should say “magazines of ALL round capacities.”

      1. 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.

        1. you forget that the M 1 Garand was also chambered in the 7.62 x 51 NATO round, about the time of the Korean War. So don’t designate any calibre for the Garand. Simply naming it, M 1 Garand, is sufficient and unambiguos Sure as shootin’, some dingbat public slavaholder like Kamala Harris will see that and outlaw any Garands in the 7.62 NATO round.

          1. Kamela Harris got “promoted” from CA Attorney General to U.S. Senator by the dingbat CA voters in November. So now she can attempt to ruin not just CA, but the whole country. So you’re right, she’d probably try to outlaw the M1 Garand in 7.62 NATO, but now she can try to do it at the *national* level 🙁 :-(.

            1. Yes, “it is possible” to recall ’em. For example, we recalled a Governor and Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected in his place approx 10 years ago. But sadly, there is not a snowball’s chance in Hades that this ultra-blue state would ever recall Kamela Harris :-(.

              And watch out for Gavin Newsom, who is another politician in the queue behind Kamela, springboarding to higher and higher elective offices (he’s currently Lt. Governor). He is another enemy of the 2nd Amendment — he was the driving force behind Proposition 63, which passed in Nov and adds all sorts of firearm and ammo restrictions … not the least of which is requiring a background check *to buy ammo* and outlawing mail-order ammo (which will drive the cost of ammo up by 60%). These people have no idea of the negative effects these laws have on law-abiding folks like us, and can’t seem to grasp the simple fact that NONE of these laws do *anything* to reduce crime or terrorism (and may indeed have the opposite effect).

            2. LarWest,
              You are so right about the dingbat voters in California.
              Just look at all the idiots who voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Republican, conservative, imbecile, incompetent, lousy, over the hill actor, who is too dumb to know when to give it up.
              You are so right about the dingbat voters in California.

        2. Any time you specify specific firearms you restrict other common and future arms and calibers. Once it is written it has the force of law and all of the unforeseen quancies be they good or bad.

          1. Steve, you hit the nail on the head. This guy Leakin is just another who would be a good master. But he still would be master.

            Just leave the second amendment as is. Read it, no interpretations needed.

            Norm

    2. I like the sound of this. God has blessed America once again with the presidency of Donald Trump. After 8 years of Obama we really needed it.

      1. Understand, this “proposed” Executive Order is not being proposed by President Trump. It’s being proposed by the author.

        Lists of “approved rifles” are a bad idea. They’re no better than lists of banned rifles, which we used to have in the expired Federal Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) and we still have today in some states like NY and CA. More are being proposed by legislatures every day. Civilian disarmers would love to create a political regulatory environment where every new firearm brought to market would have to obtain prior government approval beforet being sold to the public.

        1. Agree with Blammo on this. My AR is in 300 BLK and my store of ammunition is 300 BLK. Is that open to being banned because it is not listed in the EO? Also, language is important here. The author of the article (not the book and draft EO) makes reference to Eakin’s ‘experience as a Militia officer (National Guard and State Defense Force)’. The National Guard is NOT the militia referred to in the Constitution. The anti-gunners often attempt to make the case that the existence of the National Guard negates the need and Constitutional right to Keep and bear arms by the citizenry. But the National Guard is a force that is almost continuously a Federalized force, serving recently in Iraq and Afghanistan and under the control of the Federal government. And at least here in Virginia, the State Defense Force is not even armed.

          1. Ditto, while I do have 5.56 I do have an investment in 300BLK. With a little finessing it would be a fun EO.

            As for Harris, she’s breaking her oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution every time she opens her mouth.

        2. I agree with Blammo. This “list” leaves out all AR-15’s in other useful calibers like 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, .300 Blackout, etc. and AR-10’s with magazines up to 25 round capacity, and magazines of 40, 50, 60 and 100 round capacity, and lots of other semi-automatic rifles. A better solution would be to have BATFE issue a finite legal definition of “Assault Rifle” or “Assault Weapon” to mean what it originally meant: A rifle or “weapon” capable of fully-automatic fire, either full-time or part-time or in burst-mode ONLY, and not including any ‘weapon” that is only capable of semi-automatic fire. That would immediately shut down all bans aimed at classifying rifles solely by what they look like!

          1. I disagree. We don’t want ATF issuing ANY definitions on any subject. When Congress gave them that authority it opened up a particularly onerous door to hell for all of us. And remember, EO’s are not the way legislation is designed to be implemented. As much as I hate the wait, let the ruling by the Fourth work it’s way to SCOTUS and get a final ruling that will stand the change of administrations for decades to come.

            1. And if SCOTUS votes against us?
              We waited for the court to reverse Obama-care, and how did that turn out for us? Bush appointee John Roberts ruled against us. There’s no such thing as a sure thing, with the courts.

            2. Under the Constitution any Law against OR for the control or position and ownership of firearms is STRICTLY against the LAW. Rules and Regulations are NOT Laws. Any Judge who attempts to violate the Constitution is in fact an enemy of the Constitution period and now has the Status of Criminal. The only ones allowed to change this is Congress. Americans have the right and the Duty to charge or sue anyone (including Judges) . Some charges can be TRAITOR, ADDING and ABETTING criminals in crimes and endangering Citizens in dangerous situations. The position can’t be charged or sued but the individual can. These charges against the Constitution have no protection from the LAW. All Law’s must adhere to the Constitution or else they are not legal Laws period. >>>> Oldmarine

          2. Fine, except this needs to come from COngress and be signed into law, such that when Trump is gone the later presidents can’t negate the EO.

          3. Calling out specific guns and ammo is a terrible idea. Stick to definitions already in the books. Rifle, pistol, shotgun, AOW, and machine gun as defined by the NFA of 1934. Just like militias of the old times, run what you bring.

        3. Under the Constitution any Law against OR for the control or position and ownership of firearms is STRICTLY against the LAW. Any Judge who attempts to violate the Constitution is in fact an enemy of the Constitution period and now has the Status of Criminal. The only ones allowed to change this is Congress. Americans have the right and the Duty to charge or sue anyone (including Judges) . Some charges can be TRAITOR, ADDING and ABETTING criminals in crimes and endangering Citizens in dangerous situations. The position can’t be charged or sued but the individual can. These charges against the Constitution have no protection from the LAW. All Law’s must adhere to the Constitution or else they are not legal Laws period. >>>> Oldmarine

          1. Thank you. One observation: a typo, it should read aiding and abetting.
            Not adding and abetting . Other than that you’re spot on .

        4. I agree. A list of approved militia weapon and their approved caliber is just a doorway to banning anything not on the list. And No handgun is mentioned either. which, as all honest people know, is the weapon of choice for most gun violence in this country. Also, kind of hard to carry a long gun concealed. Give a liberal an inch and they’ll try for the whole 9 yards or mile, as you you prefer.

      2. Donald Trump is as hostile to the Bill of Rights as Obama, Bush, or Clinton. He is a big government authoritarian who wants a jackboot on your neck. Refer to his comments in support of mass surveillance and civil asset forfeiture, among other blatantly unconstitutional prctices he supports. He is also a strong supporter of unaccountable law enforcement and wants to expand “our” (i.e., HIS) standing army. What freedom-seeking patriot could possibly support such measures?

          1. What a clever response! “Tinfoil hat” — I’d never heard that line before. More important, the strength of your argument and the facts you’ve presented really have me reconsidering my position.

    3. This proposed executive order is firmly rooted in the statist, authoritarian mentality. It misses the whole point of the Second Amendment, which is to ensure that citizens have the means to defend themselves against police officers, soldiers, and/or other government mercenaries who are attempting to rob citizens of their rights.

      Anyone who doesn’t believe the above, doesn’t believe in the Second Amendment. There is no ambiguity. Read the writings of the Founders and understand their historical motivations for writing the Bill of Rights. They were keenly suspicious of excessive government power and didn’t even want a standing army to begin with. (So much for that, eh?)

      No government, even an elected one, has an automatic “right to rule.” When a government refuses to recognize basic human rights and insists on forcibly violating those rights, We The People have the right to alter or abolish it. All political power is ultimately based in the physical power of weaponry. The Second Amendment serves as a reminder that such power was intended to remain in the hands of the governed.

      Modern US citizens don’t need rifles to protect the country against foreign invasion. We have a huge Navy and Air Force and a massive nuclear deterrent — what country is going to launch a full-blown military attack against that? The US won’t even attack North Korea due to its handful of nukes. As for terrorism, that’s a manufactured crisis intended to get you to surrender your rights. Sadly, the “War on Terror” propaganda has worked extremely well to that end.

      We should get rid of the standing army (all or nearly all ground forces, and all law enforcement except elected sheriffs), and maintain only the Navy and Air Force as well as the armed citizenry. That wouldn’t merely “make America great again”; it would make America AMERICA again.

      On a final note: Donald Trump may be relatively friendly to guns, but he is an enemy of the Bill of Rights. He supports warrantless mass spying, the persecution of whistleblowers, unaccountable law enforcement, and numerous other violations of the same Constitution that he swore to uphold. And no, that doesn’t mean Hillary would have been any better.

      1. While I may agree with the tone you are arguing lost issues. No one supports the notion that citizens are allowed to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government. That ship has sailed, the government is in business to stay in business and since they control which laws may be passed its moot. We can argue the point but its over. As each successive government strengthens itself, it continues to restrict the ownership of firearms. This will continue until we decide to stop it, or go for the ride….

        1. “No one supports the notion that citizens are allowed to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government.”

          If that were true, then the Second Amendment would be dead, and with it all other rights. A government that citizens can’t overthrow (if they feel they have to) is a government that has its citizens enslaved. Those living in such a country have NO actual rights, but only privileges that can be taken away at any time.

          If you’re willing to accept such a fate for yourself and your country, then so be it. However, contrary to your claim, plenty of Americans (possibly millions) will never accept it and will even go down fighting if that becomes necessary. Some of us realize that everyone has to die sooner or later regardless, but that slavery and subjugation are purely a choice, especially for those who already possess weapons and the skill to use them.

          If it ever does come to a civil guerrilla war for freedom, I still think the odds are squarely with the People. Combined US and NATO forces couldn’t even decisively defeat the Taliban, who were ridiculously outnumbered, outgunned beyond belief, confined to an area smaller than Texas, and unable to meaningfully fight back on US soil. But the most important thing isn’t winning or losing, but to take a stand for what’s right. Google the quote by Solzhenitsyn, “How we burned in the camps later….”

          1. I agree. Guerilla warfare can be extremely effective and that’s why I believe in an armed citisenry. Hopefully it will never come to that but it is something for any would be oligarchy to contemplate…

          2. Extract from Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith

            Paris Nov. 13. 1787.
            the people can not be all, & always, well informed. the part which is wrong [. . .] will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure.

            Jefferson quotes and family letters

            http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/100

        2. ” It misses the whole point of the Second Amendment, which is to ensure that citizens have the means to defend themselves against police officers, soldiers, and/or other government mercenaries who are attempting to rob citizens of their rights.”

          No, what it does is make clear to those who serve within our government that those things are NOT under their authority; or is under their authority ONLY when certain things happen, and their required response to is put into writing, any other then that written response is not Lawful. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights makes that clear.

          Preamble to the Bill of Rights: Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
          THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, IN ORDER TO PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.” (caps are mine)

          Dr. Edwin Vieira:
          “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides…

          The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights… The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

          … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

          And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…” What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability. ” (end Dr. Vieira quote)

          Basically what the Second Amendment is very clear in that it forbids those who serve within our government to interfere in any way with the people’s natural rights to defend themselves, or with the tools they use to do that with – not how they are carried, not how many, etc.

          Constitution of the United States of America, Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” (Infringed means that they cannot tell the American people anything about their arms; not how many, not what type, not how they are carried, etc. The state’s, using the Militia of the people of that state (and they are paid the same as law enforcement when so being used), enforce the Laws.
          The ONLY authority that those who serve within our government has is over an actual crime. But there, the federal government is limited even more because the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is in writing within it that the only crimes assigned to the federal government found within the Constitution for law enforcement purposes are Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting, and International law violations.

        3. A lot of Citizens in this Country support that exact notion. This does need to come from Congress, not an E.O., to be more long lasting, but an EO is better than nothing for states like California, where the mere ownership of weapons has been severely infringed. Lose the exact definitions of Model and caliber, so that any caliber, and nay semi-auto suitable, like the AK platform as well as AR and others, can be used.

        4. A well regulated militia (armed citizen) being necessary (essential as is cannot be maintained without) to the security of a free state. (free from all forms of violence, oppression or tyranny, whether it comes from inside or outside of the state) You all know the rest.

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

      So what happens when the government is the problem? This only endorses the government in control, not the people. Government can make laws to retain their power and thus the people cannot regain their God given rights to restore the power to the people. This section, while good in intent, is just adding to the problem.

      1. Well said. Absolutely right. Stated with more detail than I did above when referring to the author’s experience as a Militia officer in the National Guard and State Defense Force. As Gun Rights advocates we must be extremely careful with language and not get caught up and tie ourselves to compromise language that can be cited when removing our rights. The Constitutional right to Keep and Bear Arms is nothing if not the right to fight tyranny in all it’s forms. Remember New Orleans during Katrina? The first impulse by the Mayor was to order the police to disarm citizens, while the citizens were being terrorized by rape, murder, theft of goods they needed to survive. So would any of us allow ourselves to be mobilized by local authorities to disarm our fellow citizens? “Sic Semper Tyrannis.”

      2. The US Constitution is supreme in this nation, which is one of the reasons its authority is limited, but its protections of the peoples libertys/property broad.

        It tells you what a Militia is, and it is NOT a governmental agency; though those that serve within the state and federal governments are REQUIRED in writing to use the Militias to
        — Enforce the US Constitution (supreme Law of the land) and each state’s Constitution (highest Law of the state except in the few instances that there is constitutional conflict),
        — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
        — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
        — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

        That is found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 of the US Constitution. (Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.“) By that requirement they are forbidden to use any other agency/group/etc for those purposes.

        The duties of those that serve within the state and federal governments TO THE MILITIAS are found in Clause 16 (“To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.)

        What a Militia is was once known to all, but there is enough writings by those who created our nation to let us know the meaning.

        Richard Henry Lee, First Senate: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

        Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control … The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”

        May I recommend that all read this by Tenche Cox and see who “gun control” is placed upon?

        Tench Coxe, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “The power of the sword, say the minority…, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. THEIR SWORDS AND EVERY TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE SOLDIER ARE THE BIRTHRIGHT OF AMERICANS. THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE SWORD IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS BUT, WHERE I TRUST IN GOD IT WILL EVER REMAIN, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.”

        So why would he proclaim that? Because even then they knew that democide was rampant by governments (murdering their own people). What did Obama do? He gave himself assassination powers (First Degree Murder Powers) though that was NOT then or now Lawful. What did the American people do about it? Nothing. they basically said that he, and others that serve within our governments, have the authority to murder us in any way, for any or no reason, because they are ??? rulers? Instead of people put into place to carry out duties that are in writing. And, much like sweeping the floor, those duties do NOT change, though the things used to carry them out do.

        Patrick Henry: “If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity.”

      3. That is a statute, BELOW the supreme Law of our land and the CONTRACT that ALL who serve within our governments – state and federal – are under, the US Constitution.

        That is really a governmental agency, and the Militia is NOT a governmental agency. Dr. Vieira describes it very well here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvtIb3OzHsc

        They called the governmental agencies “militia” to confuse the people who were no longer taught and trained as they are constitutionally required to be – and have been since our country’s beginning, literally before it became the USA. It is the people, who are required to train as the the Congress requires our military to train (once) so that they can defend themselves, their neighborhoods, counties, cities, state, and nation if ever need be. Those that serve within our government did this to disarm us, that was about the late 1920’s, 30’s – when they brought in governmental law enforcement to “free up the people’s time”. (It is always for our own good, isn’t it?) They did this right about when Joseph Stalin said to them: ”The United States should get rid of its militias”, 1933 or so.

        John Smilie warned: “Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army–or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.”

        George Washington: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”)

        Richard Henry Lee, First Senate: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”

        Something else to consider…

        Bertrand Russell,1953: “… Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible…” (“The Impact of Science on Society”, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953)

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

      The Constitution plainly states that “all power resides with the people”, and he is right on the money with this comment about: what happens if it’s the government that’s the problem?

      I also agree with Blammo’s observation on lists of approved rifles, where a rifle could banned simply by virtue of not being on the approved list. The same argument holds true for handguns, none of which are mentioned in the approved list, “arms” also include such things as swords, axes, etc., most of which are not allowed to be carried in public.

      Lists of “approved rifles” are a bad idea. They’re no better than lists of banned rifles, which we used to have in the expired Federal Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) and we still have today in some states like NY and CA. More are being proposed by legislatures every day. Civilian disarmers would love to create a political regulatory environment where every new firearm brought to market would have to obtain prior government approval before being sold to the public.

      It’s no big secret that I am not a fan of the current Administration, but but I could certainly approve this type of executive order to restore true meaning to the Second Amendment. I think we are desperately in need of an executive order to restore true Second Amendment freedoms. I think an executive order may be the only way we will ever get our Second Amendment freedoms restored to us.

      Now I want to make a bunch of conservatives fall over dead in shock : I’m a liberal. Yes I am an honest to God dyed-in-the-wool liberal and I am a fervent believer in not just the Second Amendment but the entire Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and all of the Amendments.
      I love my guns as well as my other arms, even the less modern ones. After all wars were being fought and people were defending themselves long before there was gunpowder and firearms.
      That being said I would appreciate it if people could refrain from bashing all Lberals as un-American gun haters. It has been in the news recently that there is a secret cabal in Idaho that is being headed by a Republican or so-called Conservative as head of an anti-gun group.
      Conservatives are just as capable of being begun haters as Liberals.

      1. Hi Chuck. Although you refer to yourself as a “pro-gun liberal,” you sound more like a libertarian to me. And that’s a good thing. It means you’re a real American, not merely someone who lives within US borders.

        Mainstream “conservatives” and “liberals” are hostile to freedom. Each of those camps has its own set of pet rights they want to uphold while restricting (and sometimes inventing) others. For example, “conservatives” believe flag-burning should be outlawed, since it offends them; “liberals” often want to outlaw “hate speech,” since it offends them. (Neither group has considered the idea that there’s no such thing as a “right not to be offended.” ALL speech and expression is capable of offending someone, somewhere.) Similarly, most “liberals” tend to be hostile to the Second Amendment, while most “conservatives” support gun ownership but are hostile to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

        Libertarianism is the belief that ALL rights should be protected. Those rights are nicely summarized by the Bill of Rights, and also by general statements such as “no victim, no crime.” Libertarians distrust government in general and want to keep it on a very short leash, as all of history shows us we damned well should.

        We should all break away from the outdated “Red Team vs. Blue Team” paradigm that’s used to divide and conquer us all. The real fight is ultimately about “authoritarianism vs. libertarianism,” i.e., tyranny vs. freedom.

        1. To: BMF
          From: Chuck

          Extremely well said. I could not agree with you more .
          I appreciate the fact that you don’t condemn me out of hand for being a Democrat or so-called liberal. Actually I have decided that it’s time to reregister as an Independent.
          As you say this country has demons in both camps, conservative and liberal.
          And I think you’re definition of a libertarian suits me rather well. I like it. I think I’ll keep it .
          Damn but you did a fine job of stating and summarizing the situation. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen better.
          I think you should write more. You do it very well.

    6. First, there is NO ONE, BRANCH, or OFFICE who serves within ANY position within our governments – state and federal – that was delegated any authority of any type over Americans and weapons. None. Repeatedly creating color of law to do so does not make it Lawful in this nation. Here are some comments and early court cases on this. Obama, Bush, Clinton’s, Trump, etc; add in all state governmental employees, NONE of them have any LAWFUL authority over the weapons people have – not how many, not what type, not how they carry them. The ONLY authority they have is over if they are used to commit a crime (a real crime under the US Constitution).

      People, LEARN what our government really is. You will be surprised exactly why they want to destroy the US constitution, and why they want to disarm you. They can tax you Lawfully on your property when you purchase it. They cannot, without your permission, tax your income unless you are a business – and even that is limited. They cannot tell you how to build your house, what to do on your property, how and who teaches your children, require registration to fish, hunt, travel by any form.

      When we are back under the US Constitution, when we no longer have domestic enemies that we allow to serve within our governments, when WE take care of our constitutional duties, etc it will be surprising how much safer America will be.

      Consider this, if every – or almost every – person in the USA is trained in the proper use of, arms of all types. Carry them where they will, who is going to break into your home? Play violent games on the street with you? Why do you think that Joseph Stalin, in 1933, told those who serve within our governments (that would be the progressives mainly even then): ”The United States should get rid of its militias”? Why the ruler of Japan said that to invade the USA was not wise (paraphrasing) because Americans in every home was armed, trained for the Militia.

      J.G.A. Pocock, describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S.: “The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being…”

      Everyone talks about holding those that serve within our government accountable for their actions – we do so by being informed of the US Constitution, and our own state’s Constitution, being trained as the congress requires the military to be trained to be the Militia. That is a constitutional requirement of all Americans. Control over arms is not something those who serve within our government has – not Lawfully. Nor do they have any Lawful authority over the Grand Jury or Grand Jury Investigations – they are our tools to use to discover what those that serve do, and to prosecute them. Etc. Read it for your self, see what was said and argued in the debates, etc. We are where we are today because that is not done, even by those who are Oath sworn to support and defend the US Constitution above and before the orders of superiors, and above and before the duties of the position they occupy.

      Richard Henry Lee: “Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.” (1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights)

      George Washington: “It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government…, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.” (“Sentiments on a Peace Establishment”, letter to Alexander Hamilton; “The Writings of George Washington”)

      Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567 (2003), Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reminded us that the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting: “All too many of the other great tragedies of history – Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few – were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. … If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
      “My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
      “Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.” Judge Alex Kozinski

      Justice Story, Associate Justice, Supreme Court wrote: “The next amendment is: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
      “The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them”.

      Tench Coxe, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787: “The power of the sword, say the minority…, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

      Joel Barlow, Revolutionary War veteran, wrote “Advice to the Privileged Orders, in the Several States of Europe”, clergyman, theologian, popular poet, successful diplomat, and American whose political writings were debated on the floor of Parliament said of the US Constitution: “… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”

      Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”.

      Bliss v. Commonwealth: “Arms restrictions – even concealed weapons bans – are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.”

      Nunn vs. State: ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.

      John Norton Pomeroy: “The object of this clause [the right of the people to keep and bear arms] is to secure a well-armed militia…. But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms.”

      Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5: “The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”

        1. Feel free to use any information that I post anywhere. I use the US Constitution, the framers, etc and will always post where some fact I use to back up comments made. All of them are available (if not washed from the internet) to anyone to read and learn from.

          Thank you for the compliment.

      1. Cal,
        Hats off to you and my deepest and most sincere thanks for your most enlightening, educational, well reasoned, and well presented dissertation. And all of the arguments and reasoning I have heard with regards to the second amendment yours is far and away the single most enlightened and well-documented. I would say that every reader of this post owes you a debt of gratitude for your most scholarly treatment of this subject. Damn me for the liberal that I am but your words are phenomenally on target and irrefutable. I don’t think that I have ever heard anyone put it so well, so succinctly, nor back it up with the examples and data that you have.
        My sincere thanks to you for an outstanding job of putting it all in context and giving us the historical background that you have .
        I think you need to go on a national speaking tour for promotion of the Second Amendment.
        Damn but that was a fine job you did.

      2. @Cal, what has been happening is that Congress creates an agency by an “Enabling Act.” That enabling act gives the new federal agency authority to promulgate rules that have the force and effect of “Law”
        The new federal agency is administered by the executive branch. After a while, the president, who administered the agency, decides that he wants a new rule. By executive order, the pres. tells the agency what the rule will do and how the rule will read. Viola, the president gets his way, and We the People get more rules effecting us that have the “force and effect of Law”, and all that stuff you talked about in 17 paragraphs is gone.

        1. @ Wild Bill.

          Congress is only “enabled” to use what means necessary to implement the powers assigned to the branch or office within a branch that they serve within.

          The authority delegated to the legislative branch and specifically to certain named offices within that branch are listed.

          An example that is well stated by Publius Huldah: “In a nutshell, our Constitution authorizes the federal government to handle the following objects for the Country at Large:
          — Military defense, international commerce & relations;
          — Control immigration & naturalization of new citizens;
          — Domestically, to create a uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and

          With some of the amendments, secure certain civil rights. As stated in the 10th Amendment, all others powers are reserved by the States OR The People….

          What would our Country’s financial condition be if WE THE PEOPLE had enforced the enumerated powers on Congress? It is the enumerated powers which list the objects on which Congress may appropriate funds:
          — immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
          — mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
          — Attorney General (Art. I, §8, cl. 6)
          — post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
          — patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
          — federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9)
          — military (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)
          — the civil list (Art. I, §6, cl.1)
          [and other objects listed in various other articles, sections, &clauses]

          Do you get the idea? The Constitution itemizes what Congress is permitted to spend money on. See also the two geographical areas over which Congress was delegated “general legislative powers”: Art. I, §8, next to last clause, & Art. IV, §3, cl. 2. (end quote)

          Thomas Jefferson: “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

          James Madison: “With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

          Roger Sherman, early American lawyer and politician, and a Founding Father of the United States: wanted to make it very clear that taxes could only be collected for the enumerated powers, that the “objects of the Union” are “few”; including to list them as “defence against foreign danger,” defense “against internal disputes & a resort to force,” and “regulating foreign commerce & drawing revenue from it” as the specified powers of the general (federal) government. This is consistent with Madison’s words from The Federalist and other sources, and also was the conclusive understanding that the other representatives held in the Philadelphia Convention and the state conventions afterwards.

          Madison wrote regarding the General Welfare Clause’s plain meaning when objecting to a 1792 bill which called for subsidized fisheries. The General Welfare Clause was cited as justification to pass such a bill. Madison responded: “I, sir, have always conceived – I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived, and it is still more fully known, and more material to observe that those who ratified the Constitution conceived –that this is not an indefinite Government, deriving its power from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a limited Government tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms.” He made it clear that the phrase reiterated that the specified powers were tied to “general terms.”

          James Madison: “… the interstate and foreign commerce clauses were not intended, nor construed, to vest in Congress equivalent powers when regulating domestic and foreign commerce: “I always foresaw difficulties might be started in relation to the interstate commerce power. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain it grew out of the abuse of the power of the importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventative provision against injustice amongst the states themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged. And it will be safer to leave the power with this key to it, than to extend it all the qualities and incidental means belonging to the power over foreign commerce.” (letter written to a Virginia senator, Joseph Cabell)

          James Madison, Federalist 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

          Can it be any clearer that the only lawful authority those that serve within the legislative branch has is only to do with their listed (enumerated) powers that are found in writing within the US Constitution. Just because they wanted more power, they “misconstrued” what there “powers” are. Once again, they are in writing for all three branches within the US Constitution; and the same can be said for each state’s Constitution in laying out what authority those who serve there have.

    7. Interesting to be sure. However a “Militia” is also defined as not being under state control, and can be spontaneous in response to an emergency. Then, specifying a particular rifle, shotgun, or pistol is a bad move IMO. Same goes for specific calibers, types of ammunition, or magazine capacity. Just some thoughts.

    8. This proposed executive order is frankly scary at best. Please do not press forward with this idea as a solution to the wanton disregard for the Constitutional rights of citizens by states and local political subdivisions, and for the federal government to reserve to itself the interpretation and protection of those rights (See 10th Amendment – rights held to the federal government [states cannot restrict full benefit of the amendments of the Constitution]; 14th Amendment – equal protection [rich people have always enjoyed exceptions to gun control laws; cannot have some citizens with 2A rights while others cannot simply because of their state of residence).
      The Second Amendment should be able to stand on its own. Since it apparently can’t after being throttled around for decades, Congress and the Senate need to (simply) revise it to read” The right of all citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. This sentence has always been Plain English, and remains clear even after a couple hundred years. It’s the goofy “militia” language that’s screwed up the works. Why in the heck would any thinking patriot advocate for further use of the term “militia”(!)? Besides, the way the draft EO reads, it further defines (regulates; codifies) control of the State (federal and or local) of individuals. Dude! That’s the entire freakin’ problem! Do you really want your county sheriff, or National Guard, or military officers to have direct and absolute control over who owns firearms and how they use them(!)? NO!!!! NO CONTROL over who owns. ONLY control over what one does with the tools. Yes, it’s already illegal to murder people, and yet 10,000 occurrences per year persist (not 30,000 as Hillary & Co. beguile you with).
      No executive order is needed to restate, redefine, or further restrict the Plain English content of the Second Amendment. The fear mongers worked to convince us that with the demise of Chief Justice Scalia the subsequently evenly-split Supreme Court would be hopelessly deadlocked along partisan and philosophical lines. After a proper but brief mourning period, those [then] eight justices reconvened and took on the case of Ms. Jaime Caetano, who had been arrested, charged, and found guilty of violating firearms laws in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts for owning a STUN GUN(!) to protect herself from a threat widely-known by local PD’s, despite an order of protection regarding her former boyfriend (and father of her two children – – clearly influencing her decision to purchase a non-lethal tool). Without dissent (read: unanimously) the Supreme Court vacated and kicked the case back to the State Supreme Court with a stern warning: “DO NOT MAKE US RULE ON THIS OR WE’LL UNDO ALL RESTRICTIONS BY STATES!”. See: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
      Take a moment and consider the fact that Justice Clarence Thomas has said and written very little in the way of rulings since joining the court. Well, in Caetano v. the People’s Republic of Massachusetts he not only spoke out, but he roared like a lion. Clearly the court was clearly moved by the plight of Ms. Caetano, a domestic violence victim, and the utter failure of the state to protect her – though they were ready and willing to vilify and victimize her for possession of a (expletive omitted) stun gun.

      Below are excerpts of Alito’s and Thomas’ responses. In short, it’s clear that the Supreme Court has had enough with their docket being clogged with cases of citizens being denied basic and foundational constitutional right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (tools intended to protect and feed individuals) anywhere in the nation they (freakin’) want.

      After a “bad altercation” with an abusive boyfriend put her in the hospital, Jaime Caetano found herself homeless and “in fear for [her] life.” She obtained multiple restraining orders against her abuser, but they proved futile. So when a friend offered her a stun gun “for self-defense against [her] former boy friend,” Caetano accepted the weapon.
      It is a good thing she did. One night after leaving work, Caetano found her ex-boyfriend “waiting for [her] outside.” He “started screaming” that she was “not gonna [expletive deleted] work at this place” any more because she “should be home with the kids” they had together. Caetano’s abuser towered over her by nearly a foot and outweighed her by close to 100 pounds. But she didn’t need physical strength to protect herself. She stood her ground, displayed the stun gun, and announced: “I’m not gonna take this anymore…. I don’t wanna have to [use the stun gun on] you, but if you don’t leave me alone, I’m gonna have to.” The gambit worked. The ex-boyfriend “got scared and he left [her] alone.”

      It is settled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that applies against both the Federal Government and the States. That right vindicates the “basic right” of “individual self-defense.” Caetano’s encounter with her violent ex-boyfriend illustrates the connection between those fundamental rights: By arming herself, Caetano was able to protect against a physical threat that restraining orders had proved useless to prevent. And, commendably, she did so by using a weapon that posed little, if any, danger of permanently harming either herself or the father of her children.

      Under Massachusetts law, however, Caetano’s mere possession of the stun gun that may have saved her life made her a criminal. When police later discovered the weapon, she was arrested, tried, and convicted. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a stun gun “is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.”

      This reasoning defies our decision in Heller, which rejected as “bordering on the frivolous” the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.” The decision below also does a grave disservice to vulnerable individuals like Caetano who must defend themselves because the State will not.” (OUCH!)
      “[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”
      “If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe”
      “The reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense. The Supreme Judicial Court suggested that Caetano could have simply gotten a firearm to defend herself. But the right to bear other weapons is “no answer” to a ban on the possession of protected arms. Moreover, a weapon is an effective means of self-defense only if one is prepared to use it, and it is presumptuous to tell Caetano she should have been ready to shoot the father of her two young children if she wanted to protect herself. Courts should not be in the business of demanding that citizens use more force for self-defense than they are comfortable wielding.
      Countless people may have reservations about using deadly force, whether for moral, religious, or emotional reasons — or simply out of fear of killing the wrong person. “Self-defense,” however, “is a basic right.” I am not prepared to say that a State may force an individual to choose between exercising that right and following her conscience, at least where both can be accommodated by a weapon already in widespread use across the Nation.
      A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the consequences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for self-defense.
      If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.”

      God bless you all.

      1. Lexington and Concord ring a bell?? It’s a good thing these ‘gubmint’ operatives weren’t around then, or we’d all have tea and crumpets for breakfast every day.

    9. Hello Chuck, If you are who I think you are, STOP LYING ABOUT YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT LINE WHEN YOU SAY ,I BELIEVE IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT BUT WITH REGULATIONS . This tells me, that you can ( and do) carry and I , as a L.O.C. CANNOT. Just try to get a cc in your home state of New York . I will change ONE word in In I BELIEVE IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT BUT WITH RESTRICTIONS .THAT LAST WORD SUMS IT ALL-UP

      1. Rich,
        I have no idea who the hell you think you’re talking to, or who the hell you think I am but I never once used the word regulations in my post because I don’t believe in regulations when it comes to the Second Amendment none zero nada. Might want to eat up on the magic mushrooms.
        I don’t carry I wish I could I wish I did . And what in the flying flip is an L.O.C., I haven’t got a clue what you even begin to mean by that. You have definitely got me confused with somebody else you referred to my home state is New York you couldn’t be further off the map if you tried.
        And they never said I believe in the Second Amendment with one-word restrictions you are like tripping big time dude . Maybe been smoking a little too much rope?

    10. Years ago I worked with a black man. He carried a long bladed folding knife. I It was illegal in that city. I asked him if he wasn’t scared the police would catch him with it.
      His answer, “I’d rather the policeman would catch me with it than some people catch me with out it”.
      This makes sense to me.

    11. This will Backfire due to it is too specific in types of Weapons and Ammunition and overlaps into the oath. This also seems like with our New POTUS there are a increasing amount of Pro-Gun Evangelists coming forward. I understand to intent to pushback, but we already have many Laws and Rights in Place…it is more about interpretation and Education.
      Because consider the fact the Left or Democrats or Fascist Liberals Anti-Gun Zealots never think of the Law, they think in emotion and morality.

    12. Nice to have the EO then followed by Congress. The EO is fine to establish the rights of militia to possess all firearms necessary to defend themselves and our Country. It should not limit calibers or place of manufacture. It is great to expand the magazine capacity to unlimited . It must also include all handguns.

    13. While I understand (and agree with) the idea and intent, I think this is a poor execution of that idea. The definitions in this proposed EO are too limiting (such as the descriptions of organizations in Sec 3e or the lists of rifles in Sec 4 already pointed out by many before me). While I understand that such specificity is the hobgoblin of writing laws and that vague, open phrases such as “including but not limited too” are often the arena upon which legal battles are fought, this almost reads as a plan for, “This is how the Executive Branch will allow the citizen army (which we will conscript as necessary) shall be equipped.”

      It’s actually much simpler. All it needs to say is that all firearms in the hands of citizens may be used for all lawful purposes and that all such persons are, by definition, the militia.

    14. Fabulous suggestion, well thought out. Since many people have read Ted Coppel’s “Lights Out,” and have thought that citizen militia’s would have a role during an extended grid-down, perhaps the following addition to the Purpose would help:

      Section 1. Purpose. Both individual and community safety are critically important to the national security of the United States. Terrorism, *attacks on the electric grid*, 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.

      I would sign-up for training and prepare to be part of the “well-regulated militia.” Mr. President, I hope you see this. MAGA!

      1. @Patriot, I read “Lights Out”. Scary! Forstchen’s book “One Second After” is the antidote. If that scenario happened all federal law, and agencies, and courts, and Congress would be out the window. “One Day After” and “The Borrowed World” series are full of great survival strategies.

        1. Hi Wild Bill:

          Yes, there are other grid-down scenarios besides cyber, such as the Jihad practice fire at the Metcalf Substation; North Korea or Iran with a 250 mile altitude low-yield nuke for maximum EMP, or a Carrington CME event, such as the one we narrowly missed in 2012. My suggestion is that if any such grid-down event occurred, the citizen Militia will be the only law and order thereafter. For a long time.

          Sad, but if every electric rate-payer pitched in $6 per month for 5 years, replacement hardware could be on standby to fix a fried grid quickly enough to prevent the end of civilization. Few people know that, but that’s what the experts said in a 2014 Congressional committee hearing.

          1. @Patriot, If the grids went down for more than a month every stock would be worthless. Every gold or silver coin would be worthless. Every form of wealth would be worthless. But the family with a case of canned corn or a box of ammo would be millionaires!

            1. What’s even sadder is that if the imbeciles at the Pentagon hadn’t lost $1 billion cash in Iraq that they can’t account for we wouldn’t need to chip in another five dollars on top of the already ridiculous income tax we pay. The way our government wastes money they could have already replaced the electrical grid infrastructure a couple of times over. This country is $20 trillion in debt. The big corporations and the 1% crowd have over $32 trillion stashed in offshore bank accounts. If that money were still in country we could pay off the national debt and still have $12 trillion left over for infrastructure. In 2010 GE had several billion dollars in profit and instead of paying so much is a penny in tax they were given a $3 billion tax credit. The reason our electrical grid infrastructure is crumbling and hasn’t been replaced and we have no money to replace it is because our government is run by greedy, corrupt imbeciles. From both parties. Liberal and Conservative alike. Greed knows no political affiliations.

    15. Hi Chuck:
      The proposed Executive Order was my segue into a real but quite unappreciated need for our existing citizen militia. The electric utility industry is quite aware of the potential for a massive grid-down scenario, but there is no traction to be gained from the 50+ public utilities commissions that must improve rate increases for emergency hardware, no matter how modest the cost. The PUCs are not vested with a prepper’s mindset. I have been writing selected representatives about the idea of voluntary rate-payer contributions to harden the grid, bypassing PUCs, and plan to engage more, but the insanity on the Hill is consuming all thought. Trump Derangement Syndrome has taken over, and with Obama’s Soros-funded “Organization for Action” it looks like it will be a chronic condition. Patriot Nurse recently posted a video saying that another civil war is near; I hope that the mentally stable among us will continue the fight that launched The Donald, preventing an actual civil war. The political civil war is certainly upon us now….let’s hope.

    16. don’t forget the AK 47 style rifle in all variants as it could be the weapon of choice of any hostile entity and ammo captured by a militia organization would be readily available for use. that way I could go dig mine up from where I had to bury it to hide it from Andy Coumo

    17. Jerry, I’m so sorry to hear that you live in New York. A beautiful state, west and north of the coast. Hopefully the bill being advanced in the Legislature to confine the SAFE Act (to keep criminals safe) to NYC will gain traction. Move out if you can.

      My sense is that many preppers have stockpiled 5.56/223. 7.56 for AK’s is great, but AK’s can’t be had by the law-abiding on the coasts.

    18. I realize that many things were left out! But they fall under the same rule that we live by now. I will shoot your a** if you try to take it from me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    19. Leakin says “The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly found that the Second Amendment protects civilian ownership of firearms for Militia purposes, but has not defined those purposes.”

      This is completely untrue. Civilian ownership is protected without regard to purpose. At least that’s what the Supreme Court has said.

    Leave a Reply

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