Thursday , 18 January 2018
Home » Blog » Legislation » Proposed Executive Order Equates 2nd Amendment With Militia

Proposed Executive Order Equates 2nd Amendment With Militia

In light of the faulty 4th Circuit decision that upheld Maryland “Scary Black Rifle” ban, claiming that “2nd Amendment Rights do not apply to Assault Weapons such as the AR15”, Virginia attorney Lenden Eakin proposed an Executive Order that he believes is a great workaround for Assault Weapons Bans.

From John Boch, at The Truth About Guns:

The simple mechanism of attorney Eakin’s proposal: by defining certain categories of rifles for militia use, the President could strike state and local bans on many of the most popular “assault rifles” and their magazines.

You can read the entire text at the link above, but the TLDR; version essentially defines certain terms such as:

“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.

“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.

“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.

Then, proceeds to “protect” ownership of said rifles, but only for citizens that belong to a now-defined “militia” which, according to Title 10, Section 311 of the US Code is:

(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, essentially, this Executive Order, if signed, puts forth the argument that the 2nd Amendment only applies to “The Militia” and not “The People”.

  • Are you 46 years old, with no prior military record?  Your 2nd Amendment Rights are now forfeit.
  • Are you handicapped, in a wheel chair, looking to defend your family and home?  Too bad.  According to the definition set in this EO, you’re not an able-bodied male.  Your 2nd Amendment Rights are now forfeit.
  • And, according to 10 U.S. Code § 311, if you’re Female, and not a member of the National Guard, then you’re not a member of “The Militia” – your 2nd Amendment Rights are now forfeit.

This is a dangerously incompetent Executive Order that easily hands over 2nd Amendment Rights to the gun grabbers, as your 2nd Amendment Rights now only apply if you’re in the “Militia”, and who decides who belongs to “The Militia”?  The very men & women that you could one day need to protect yourself from.

Even though this EO seeks to circumvent idiocy, like seen from the 4th Circuit, all we really need are law makers with the spine needed to stand up to the groupthink we see in leftist, Anti-2nd-Amendment advocates who desperately need a 4th Grade level schooling on how Constitutional Law works.  If this were Reddit, and we were doing an ELI5, it’d go something like this:

The Constitution defines what Government may do.  In other words, if it’s not written down, Federal Government cannot do it.

One popular counter-argument to this is “But what about States Rights? States can define weapons bans!”.  But…once again, they’d be wrong:  Insert the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, Rights, such as those defined in the 1st & 2nd Amendment, which have been deemed ‘incorporated’, are no longer subject to States Rights, and are thereby given the Federal protections outlined in the Constitution… And one quick glance over the Constitution reveals one, irrefutable line, that completely ties the Government’s hands in relation to the possession of firearms for all law-abiding men & women of the United States of America:

The Right of The PEOPLE to keep & bear arms, shall not be infringed.


About Brandon P

I believe you can learn all you'd ever need to know about a person by listening to how they describe an individuals freedom to protect themselves. I'm politically incorrect (and proud of it) and when it comes to gun rights for law abiding citizens, I am NEVER neutral!

Check Also

Supreme Court Upholds Limiting Guns for Domestic Infractions

Supreme Court Upholds Limiting Guns for Domestic Infractions In a case touching on one of the …

Leave a Reply