Jump to content

Proposed Executive Order Designating Certain Rifles for ‘Militia Purposes( link)

Sweeper13

By Sweeper13
in National Politics

Recommended Posts

xdm45aaron Member

xdm45aaron

Posted
Posted

Reading it, wouldn't that overturn any local bans on assault weapons?

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.

 

It would appear that way

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patriots & Tyrants Member

Patriots & Tyrants

Posted
Posted

An EO doesn't do anything long term though. It will just be repealed the second an anti gun democrat gets into office. Which will probably be the very next president after Trump.

 

It states in the article that it is a stop gap, probably until Trump can get a 5-4 or even 6-3 reliable pro 2A SCOTUS going that actually wants to hear these cases. This move tells me the SCOTUS is not going to hear the recent Maryland case though.

 

I think anti gun states will be anti gun and laugh at this, they will all have to be sued and it has to work its way through the courts. Some liberal anti gun judge will order a stay until it is sorted out in the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DomG Member

DomG

Posted
Posted

An EO doesn't do anything long term though. It will just be repealed the second an anti gun democrat gets into office. Which will probably be the very next president after Trump.

I agree, but in states like California or Massachusetts it will be like trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube when it's repealed. How well is that gun turn in going in Connecticut?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
xdm45aaron Member

xdm45aaron

Posted
Posted

I always hear people say we shouldn't be allowed to have firearms because it only applies to militias. The wording seems to call out the "unorganized militia" as a way to say that people don't have to "register" a militia with the government in order to have the 2nd amendment apply to them. This may be their way of getting around that in their opinion. I have to agree with mauserme though, I hope they don't rush into something that backfires. Either way I believe at some point soon this will be in the Supreme Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

I think this language presents an opportunity for the anti's to claim that even a pro-gun president thinks they're military weapons.

 

 

That was my first impression, too, especially since the President would be issuing this order as the "Commander-in-Chief." It sends an ambiguous message.

 

Regardless, according to the article, this was drafted by an attorney in Virginia (Mr. Eakin). We don't know if the White House has even seen it, and certainly don't know if President Trump would support it. IMHO, for now it's just a piece of paper, unless Mr. Boch (author of the article) knows something else he isn't sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tkroenlein Member

tkroenlein

Posted
Posted

No EO should affect a constitutional right, period. If he'll sign an EO, he'll sign legislation. Anything we gain should be done the right way. Imagine it's BHO every time Trump puts up an EO. Every time we step into the gray area of executive orders, we lose.

 

As to mauserme's post, I agree. We must be very, very careful with language that we codify.

 

I am a NAY vote for anything that can be flipped by a rabid left wing progressive as easily as a right winger can order it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Glock23 Member

Glock23

Posted
Posted

I think this language presents an opportunity for the anti's to claim that even a pro-gun president thinks they're military weapons.

 

And, to the extent an EO carries legal authority, courts could use it to give broader meaning to Heller's presumptive legality of bans on "M16 rifles and the like".

 

I hope no one rushes into this.

 

Agreed.

 

I could see the reasoning if this were only to get around the bans by "legalizing" ARs as militia weapons... but the EO also spoke to self defense as being a valid reason to have one.... so I don't see the point in the reclassification as militia weapons.

 

Why not just issue an EO preempting all state laws which ban any firearms other than those banned federally?

 

I like that it seems they're moving forward in an effort to preserve our rights.... I just don't agree with how it's purportedly being done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

In the comments section on TTAG, Boch states that this is "getting sent up the food chain" and that the "NRA-ILA likes it." (Boch is a member of the President's Second Amendment Coalition, headed by Donald Trump, Jr.)

 

If this is what we can expect from the 2A Coalition, I'm worried.

 

On the other hand, this could simply be a publicity stunt...

 

Boch's post:

 

There have been some diamonds in the rough. And yes, it is getting sent up the food chain. And I suspect USA Today will have a story about it in the coming days as I spent 61 minutes on the phone with a reporter about this today.

 

This isn't about listing all guns. This is about the President using his power as the CIC of the militia ensuring that the members of the militia basically all adults have Garands, M1As, and AR pattern rifles available to them.

 

The president doesn't have the authority to fix bad decisions ignoring precedent (stare decisis?). He does have the authority to command the militia and ensure the appropriate guns are available to them.

 

Some people are all wrapped around the axle about AKs, or guns in general. Or mag capacity. Look folks, this isn't a reaching for the stars proposal. This is a legally defensible proposal that will blow a real hole in the world of anti-gun Progressive (aka Anti-gun) Democrats and their fiefdoms.

 

Done so that it gives gun owners in those areas some breathing room until we can get the Fourth Circuit decision reversed. (Someone asked that I use the case name, but screw it. Frankly I feel as though the decision as as terrible as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions, and for the time being I may start referring to it as the Fourth Circus v. The American People decision.)

 

Legal minds far sharper than mine, with Juris Doctors in their background, have looked at this and like it. The NRA-ILA likes it. And by goodness, if it puts another arrow in President Donald Trumps quiver, then its a good day. Even if it doesnt get used, it still will rock anti-gunners back if it's seriously considered.

 

.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Glock23 Member

Glock23

Posted
Posted

In the comments section on TTAG, Boch states that this is "getting sent up the food chain" and that the "NRA-ILA likes it." (Boch is a member of the President's Second Amendment Coalition, headed by Donald Trump, Jr.)

 

If this is what we can expect from the 2A Coalition, I'm worried.

 

On the other hand, this could simply be a publicity stunt...

 

Boch's post:

 

There have been some diamonds in the rough. And yes, it is getting sent up the food chain. And I suspect USA Today will have a story about it in the coming days as I spent 61 minutes on the phone with a reporter about this today.

 

This isn't about listing all guns. This is about the President using his power as the CIC of the militia ensuring that the members of the militia basically all adults have Garands, M1As, and AR pattern rifles available to them.

 

The president doesn't have the authority to fix bad decisions ignoring precedent (stare decisis?). He does have the authority to command the militia and ensure the appropriate guns are available to them.

 

Some people are all wrapped around the axle about AKs, or guns in general. Or mag capacity. Look folks, this isn't a reaching for the stars proposal. This is a legally defensible proposal that will blow a real hole in the world of anti-gun Progressive (aka Anti-gun) Democrats and their fiefdoms.

 

Done so that it gives gun owners in those areas some breathing room until we can get the Fourth Circuit decision reversed. (Someone asked that I use the case name, but screw it. Frankly I feel as though the decision as as terrible as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions, and for the time being I may start referring to it as the Fourth Circus v. The American People decision.)

 

Legal minds far sharper than mine, with Juris Doctors in their background, have looked at this and like it. The NRA-ILA likes it. And by goodness, if it puts another arrow in President Donald Trumps quiver, then its a good day. Even if it doesnt get used, it still will rock anti-gunners back if it's seriously considered.

.

 

 

Boch is a bit "out there" at times, and I'd hope his positions aren't always necessarily those held by the rest of the 2nd Amendment Coalition.

 

Note a recent TTAG post about a possible 2nd civil war, in which case he believes that those on the other side will move from their current "protests" which result in the smashing of windows and looting to the extreme of making their way through residential neighborhoods, setting houses on fire, then killing "us" as we flee our burning homes.

 

Couple that with his refusal to amend his writings about the Philando Castille case, despite evidence that contradicts his obvious bias against the guy, and I can easily see Boch as someone we don't necessarily want representing the mindset of "our side."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted
Here's a recent NRA-ILA article, "Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Ignores Heller: No Protection for Guns It Deems “Dangerous”https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170222/fourth-circuit-court-of-appeals-ignores-heller-no-protection-for-guns-it-deems-dangerous

 

That's a great article, and I would think most of us agree with the NRA's assessment of the ridiculous outcome from the 4th circuit.

 

The article does not address or advocate EOs or other related actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Glock23 Member

Glock23

Posted
Posted

I don't see how an EO can preempt state laws. Even a federal law that preempts state gun laws would be challenged on Constitutional grounds, so I'm very skeptical an EO would have any impact whatsoever.

 

If this were possible, surely Obama would have stopped states from enacting strict abortion laws.

 

States and municipalities can't enact restrictions on voting rights... why should the 2nd Amendment be any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lockman Member

lockman

Posted
Posted

I don't see how an EO can preempt state laws. Even a federal law that preempts state gun laws would be challenged on Constitutional grounds, so I'm very skeptical an EO would have any impact whatsoever.

 

If this were possible, surely Obama would have stopped states from enacting strict abortion laws.

 

In this case the EO is issued under the Presidents authority as commander in chief of the militia. This authority is granted to him by the Constitution and the militia act passed by congress.

 

The states would have to comply as long as the constitution is the supreme law of the land. The next president could certainly exercise their authority in their position as the commander unless congress or the supreme court intervene with contrary interpretations or direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mikew Member

mikew

Posted
Posted

 

 

States and municipalities can't enact restrictions on voting rights... why should the 2nd Amendment be any different?

 

Don't they, though?

 

ID requirements, voting vs electioneering vs free speech, regulations concerning early/absentee voting, disenfranchisement for felons, even when their sentence is fully completed, etc.

Right or wrong, it is done.

 

We argue here about how right or wrong it is, whether or not it is constitutional, but the situation exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tkroenlein Member

tkroenlein

Posted
Posted

 

 

States and municipalities can't enact restrictions on voting rights... why should the 2nd Amendment be any different?

 

 

 

Don't they, though?

 

ID requirements, voting vs electioneering vs free speech, regulations concerning early/absentee voting, disenfranchisement for felons, even when their sentence is fully completed, etc.

Right or wrong, it is done.

 

We argue here about how right or wrong it is, whether or not it is constitutional, but the situation exists.

We shouldn't conflate restriction and regulation.

 

Stating that a right is restricted implies that it cannot be exercised to the extent that a free person should be allowed.

 

Regulation implies that there are rules to follow while exercising a right.

 

Voting needs to be regulated, firearms ownership needs to be regulated, and speech needs to regulated. To those assertions I will submit Chicago's dead voters, duly adjudicated murderers, and Ferguson, MO., respectively, as support for my reasoning.

 

There are a lot of restrictions on our rights that shouldn't be. I find it absolutely ludicrous that suppressors were ever outlawed. But I also think it's ludicrous that people who think you should show an ID to vote are called racists. Somewhere between the utopias of the socialists and the anarchists is a reasonable compromise called civilized society.

 

The simple "It's unconstitutional!" argument is useless, and perhaps even intellectually dishonest. We must learn to acknowledge the other guy's position and present our case from a position of reason, and while the hateful opponents of freedom will never give us an inch, they won't be able refute our positions with fact.

 

BTW, this isn't directed at mikew, I just found his comment thought provoking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WitchDoctor Member

WitchDoctor

Posted
Posted

No EO should affect a constitutional right, period. If he'll sign an EO, he'll sign legislation. Anything we gain should be done the right way. Imagine it's BHO every time Trump puts up an EO. Every time we step into the gray area of executive orders, we lose.

 

As to mauserme's post, I agree. We must be very, very careful with language that we codify.

 

I am a NAY vote for anything that can be flipped by a rabid left wing progressive as easily as a right winger can order it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These are the words i could not put into thoughts, but it surely sums up my feelings regarding how I stand on this issue. We have come far, let us not be stopped by anyone or thing. We need to be smart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wtr100 Member

wtr100

Posted
Posted

What would then be needed would be to appoint a deputy attorney general in the cibble rights division of the justice department for Second Amendment rights to start putting the weight of the justice department on cities and states to make them straighten up and fly right

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tango7 Member

Tango7

Posted
Posted

There's also the unintended consequence of a strict application of that law.

 

Consider the content of the Militia Act as found at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311:

 

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

 

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b.) The classes of the militia are

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So if you're over 45 and didn't serve in the Regular forces, you could be told that the ban remains in effect. Vets can keep them until they're 64.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...