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

Subscribe
Notify of
74 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Norm Glitz
Norm Glitz
3 years ago

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.

Roy F. Wilt
Roy F. Wilt
3 years ago

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Patriot
Patriot
3 years ago

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.

Jerry
Jerry
3 years ago

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

Patriot
Patriot
3 years ago

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… Read more »

The real impotus Donald Trump
The real impotus Donald Trump
2 years ago
Reply to  Patriot

Just wondering if most of you guys are commandos with Meal Team Six, sometimes referred to as the Cracker Barrels

Patriot
Patriot
3 years ago

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.… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  Patriot

@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.

Patriot
Patriot
3 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

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… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  Patriot

@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!

Chuck
Chuck
3 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

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… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
2 years ago
Reply to  Patriot

@OV, that is scary. Hey, do you know anything about solar electric power? Can I hook up ten deep cycle 12v batteries in series and skip the inverter? Or should I have 4 batteries in series and an inverter?

DesertShark
DesertShark
3 years ago

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… Read more »

Keith
Keith
3 years ago

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.

TheGunnyRet
TheGunnyRet
3 years ago

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.

L.L. Smith
L.L. Smith
3 years ago

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.

rich
rich
3 years ago

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

Vanns40
Vanns40
3 years ago
Reply to  rich

Where did he he say “…but with regulations…”? Did I miss it somewhere?

Chuck
Chuck
3 years ago
Reply to  rich

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… Read more »

Hoosier Veteran
Hoosier Veteran
3 years ago

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… Read more »

VT Patriot
VT Patriot
3 years ago

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.

Patrick Sperry
Patrick Sperry
3 years ago

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.

Cal
Cal
3 years ago

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… Read more »

Patrick Sperry
Patrick Sperry
3 years ago
Reply to  Cal

Great piece Cal, and I would like permission to re-post it on my blog.

Cal
Cal
3 years ago
Reply to  Patrick Sperry

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.

Chuck
Chuck
3 years ago
Reply to  Cal

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… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
3 years ago
Reply to  Cal

@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… Read more »

Cal
Cal
3 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

@ 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 &… Read more »

Chuck
Chuck
3 years ago

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… Read more »

BMF
BMF
3 years ago
Reply to  Chuck

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… Read more »

Chuck
Chuck
3 years ago
Reply to  BMF

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… Read more »

Al
Al
3 years ago

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… Read more »

David
David
3 years ago
Reply to  Al

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,… Read more »

BMF
BMF
3 years ago
Reply to  David

I’m in 100% agreement with you and Al.

Cal
Cal
3 years ago
Reply to  Al

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… Read more »

Cal
Cal
3 years ago
Reply to  Al

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… Read more »

R Grissom
R Grissom
3 years ago

Section 3 sub f, made in America to read.. owned by citizens

Do not limit our choices of firearms by country of origin.

Jdl
Jdl
3 years ago
Reply to  R Grissom

Agree!

BMF
BMF
3 years ago

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… Read more »

Jim S
Jim S
3 years ago
Reply to  BMF

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….

BMF
BMF
3 years ago
Reply to  Jim S

“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… Read more »

LesWol
LesWol
3 years ago
Reply to  BMF

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…

Chuck
Chuck
3 years ago
Reply to  BMF

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… Read more »

Cal
Cal
3 years ago
Reply to  Jim S

” 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… Read more »

Michael Icefire
Michael Icefire
3 years ago
Reply to  Jim S

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.

Matt Farmer
Matt Farmer
3 years ago
Reply to  Jim S

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.

Hayden the Patriot
Hayden the Patriot
3 years ago

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.

BLAMMO
BLAMMO
3 years ago

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.

David
David
3 years ago
Reply to  BLAMMO

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… Read more »

UpChuck.Liberals
UpChuck.Liberals
3 years ago
Reply to  David

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.

John D
John D
3 years ago
Reply to  BLAMMO

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.… Read more »

Vanns40
Vanns40
3 years ago
Reply to  John D

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.

Ron W.
Ron W.
3 years ago
Reply to  Vanns40

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.

Oldmarine
Oldmarine
3 years ago
Reply to  Vanns40

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… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico
3 years ago
Reply to  John D

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.

TexasProud
TexasProud
3 years ago
Reply to  John D

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.

Oldmarine
Oldmarine
3 years ago
Reply to  BLAMMO

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… Read more »

Chuck
Chuck
3 years ago
Reply to  Oldmarine

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

Tommie
Tommie
3 years ago
Reply to  BLAMMO

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.

Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
3 years ago

Can confirm he’s actually my brother you are blessed

BMF
BMF
3 years ago

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?

Jdl
Jdl
3 years ago
Reply to  BMF

Careful, you get too excited and your tinfoil hat might fall off…

BMF
BMF
3 years ago
Reply to  Jdl

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.

Autistic Cracker
Autistic Cracker
3 years ago

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

colarguns
colarguns
3 years ago

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… Read more »

Tionico
Tionico
3 years ago
Reply to  colarguns

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.

LarWest
LarWest
3 years ago
Reply to  Tionico

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 🙁 :-(.

Alan
Alan
3 years ago
Reply to  LarWest

California has provision for recall of elected officials when last I looked. Talk of poetic justice.

LarWest
LarWest
3 years ago
Reply to  LarWest

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… Read more »

Chuck
Chuck
3 years ago
Reply to  LarWest

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.

Edward Weber
Edward Weber
3 years ago
Reply to  LarWest

Chuck,

IF you had a brain,,,you’d be dangerous.

jimbo
jimbo
3 years ago
Reply to  colarguns

Include M249 saw, M60 Machine gun, M4 Full auto etc….

Steven Richmond
Steven Richmond
3 years ago
Reply to  colarguns

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.

Norm Glitz
Norm Glitz
3 years ago

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