Concerns over the text of a possible Trump E.O. on "Militia rifles"

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • brotherbill3

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 10, 2010
    2,041
    48
    Hamilton Co.
    I read it (the language in TTAG's post) ... and beside needing to be much better worded, I don't see it as "workable" or even enforceable ...

    While I sorta kinda like the basic motivation - I think at first glace some will think its "anti-gun" - it's intent is to strengthen gun owners rights.

    But by what authority does the POTUS' EO have to tell states anything? or the Federal Judiciary ... Definitions are too narrow;
    Loop holes to hang us all by, in the hand of another administration down the road.

    J-IMHO after a hair more than a cursory read; and littel thought beyond.
     

    avboiler11

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Jun 12, 2011
    2,950
    119
    New Albany
    For somebody who was up in arms about Obama's use of EOs...Trump sure seems to be a fan of them.

    This would have a HELL of a lot more weight coming from Congress.
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Yeah, this was covered a bit in Kut's thread.

    My thoughts:
    You know, as the notion of a "militia arms" EO settles in, there is one advantage: incrementalism. Lets say this dramatically changes the (perceived)* legal landscape for the next 3.5 years. I think INGO can all agree that there won't be a mass of shootings. Blood will continue to not run in the streets.

    So, the country could settle in with the idea that there isn't any inherent danger in more guns, or even more EBRs specifically. The legal landscape itself won't change much, really. SCOTUS would still have the ultimate word on the scope of Heller. The EO would fundamentally change federal enforcement. The NFA enforcement would get tricky, if we're being intellectually honest.

    Ideally, Trump could parlay the EO into actual legislation. You know.... the way it is supposed to work.
    Yeah. But that's probably why they're not getting that far, yet. Politically, there was probably a serious lack of consensus internally about how far to push. This would strike a balance of incrementalism.

    My gut's still not thrilled with this as an EO. I'd prefer to see it as a legislative initiative. It borrows too much from Obama's pen-and-phone schtick.

    My trigger finger, on the other hand, likes it. :D
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    Call me crazy. I do not trust Caesar. Whatever his last name is this term.
    No kidding.

    47951.jpg
     

    DNS

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 28, 2013
    190
    16
    Northern IN
    The only President in years who stands up for the 2nd amendment and you guys still don't like him. Calling him Caesar is just as bad as the democrat's calling him dictator and feeding into their protests. Some you guy's deserve to have Hillary's Australian style gun control.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    The only President in years who stands up for the 2nd amendment and you guys still don't like him. Calling him Caesar is just as bad as the democrat's calling him dictator and feeding into their protests. Some you guy's deserve to have Hillary's Australian style gun control.

    There's little doubt that from a 2A perspective, Trump was the better candidate. He's not perfect (no one is) and he still has his flaws- from what I've seen through the MSM filter, the biggest of those is ego. Running a country like you run a company might be possible. It might even be wise, treating federal funds as if they were your own (in terms of being thrifty with them, not as in, "It's mine, I'll spend it how I like!") ETA: Note that saying he was the better candidate is only saying he wasn't promising to do everything he could to dismantle the 2A and possibly the entire Constitution.

    Also, in fairness, it looks to me like the reference is not to Trump specifically, but to whomever occupies the office of President. He's saying that you can't trust politicians in general, as I read it. With that said, it seems to me that Trump is doing his best to keep his promises he made during the campaign, no matter what the media does to smear and fight him. I have to wonder, just as I did before, by what margin would he have won, had he not been fighting not only Hillary but also the media and his own party? What would he have accomplished so far, had he gotten the "honeymoon" that every President before him got (from the media) and had he not still been fighting the GOP establishment?

    And no one deserves to have Australian-style "gun control". That's like saying someone deserves to be raped, and I'm not sure the word "like" belongs in there, given that in both cases, someone's getting screwed.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     
    Last edited:

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    The only President in years who stands up for the 2nd amendment and you guys still don't like him. Calling him Caesar is just as bad as the democrat's calling him dictator and feeding into their protests. Some you guy's deserve to have Hillary's Australian style gun control.
    .

    There was plenty of "tyrant" around Obama's use of EO's. Lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth about bypassing the legislature, ruling like a king, etc. There were plenty of folks right here who seriously seemed to believe he would declare martial law and take a 3rd term. So if it's that dangerous to democracy and the republic when the other guy does it, the process doesn't suddenly become safe and acceptable. Either the process is dangerous, and the user tyrannical, or it isn't. The only difference is if the dictator is benevolent or not, should you be of the "tyrant" bent.

    Looking at the supposed EO:
    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.

    for individual citizens to keep and bear for Militia purposes

    and I'm left wondering...so what? Is this *actually* pro-2nd amendment or just more posturing? So I can take my state banned AR to training with the Sheriff's posse? If it's legit, and if it's worded how it says it is...posturing.

    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.

    So we're now cool with POTUS changing state laws on his own? No way that could backfire.
     

    Prometheus

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 20, 2008
    4,462
    48
    Northern Indiana
    The original intent of Executive Orders hasn't been followed in a hundred years +.

    An E.O. is meant to be along the lines of:

    "Friday the the 13th will be casual Friday at the White House, no wigs needed".

    "Ms. Secretary, please order some more paperclips, we're running low"

    "Secretary of Defense, send a fleet to be in the area of the Barbary Coast, the pirates are getting uppity"

    That's pretty much it.

    The President truly only *needs* to issue 1 Executive Order- repealing every single previous E.O. ever issued.
     

    DeadeyeChrista'sdad

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    Feb 28, 2009
    10,073
    149
    winchester/farmland
    Last edited:

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?

    two70

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    19   0   0
    Feb 5, 2016
    3,725
    113
    Johnson
    .

    There was plenty of "tyrant" around Obama's use of EO's. Lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth about bypassing the legislature, ruling like a king, etc. There were plenty of folks right here who seriously seemed to believe he would declare martial law and take a 3rd term. So if it's that dangerous to democracy and the republic when the other guy does it, the process doesn't suddenly become safe and acceptable. Either the process is dangerous, and the user tyrannical, or it isn't. The only difference is if the dictator is benevolent or not, should you be of the "tyrant" bent.

    EOs are neither inherently good or bad, nor are they all created equal. Instead of being viewed in such simplistic general terms they should be judged individually based on agreement with relevant law and being within the scope of Executive powers. Making an argument comparing the support for Trumps EOs thus far and the distrust for Obama's previously is overly general and simplistic at best and outright deceptive at worst. Any worthwhile comparison needs to be made on a case by case basis on the criteria noted above. I have yet to see a Trump EO that violated either of those two criteria yet (notwithstanding the one being proactively hyperventilated over in this thread, provided it ever actually materializes) while several of Obama's EOs were highly questionable if not clear violations of both parts. Wherever you stand on the issue of EOs it impossible to honestly argue that what one president can do by EO another can't also undo via EO. I would note that much of the description of Obama as a would be tyrant is not based on his EO as much as his words and actions.... words and actions that appear to be continuing even after leaving the office.
     
    Top Bottom