Saturday, February 25, 2017

What a Great Way to Kick the Progressives in the Teeth!

2/24/17 The Truth About Guns reports that Trump may be considering an executive order defining Maryland's assault weapon ban as interfering with the militia.  The supposed EO under consideration:
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.
That would be gutsy and a nice jab at progressives who thought Obama EOs could force all public schools to have transgendered bathrooms. And we do have Supreme Court decisions recognizing that rifle possession is protected as part of maintaining a militia. Presser v. Illinois, 116 US 252, 265 (1886):
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision [Second Amendment] in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.


  1. If Trump is planning such an order it could have implications on the California Assault Weapon Act, and the laws in New Jersey and New York.

  2. In reading the whole thing I noticed the specific references to the AR-15, the M-1A and the M-1 Garand as well as Bolt action rifles that fire military calibers. In many ways its in-line with the intent of the 1792 militia act with its caliber clause. It also is in-line with the State Defense Force laws and regulations as administered by the National Guard Bureau.

    In the long run its a presidential designation of a standard militia arm which is a long time in coming.

  3. For the record, is Maryland defining "assault weapon" accurately?

  4. AlanKH:

    there is no definition for "assault weapon", since it is not a real item. It is a made up political label, and varies from location and politician.