[Celerity]

This type of EO is perfect though - It does not establish a new rule, it’s a federal edict that enforces a constitutional rule.

The constitution is federal and the states do NOT have the right to negate any of the enumerated rights. The 10th amendment allows states some degree of decisions but nothing that can interfere with the original bill of rights or the constitution.

An EO would be effective not to establish a new rule, but to enforce those that are original constitutional law. The states CAN NOT declare laws that differ from the federal constitution when it comes to the 2nd amendment. All of the local and state laws in this regard are illegal and illegitimate.

[ConservativeMind]

EOs only apply to federal workers. They can’t possibly be used or interpreted in the way you wish.

No EO in the history of this country was followed by any non-federal government employee. No EO creates any rights or opportunities between states.

[sergeantdave]

“This type of EO is perfect though - It does not establish a new rule, it’s a federal edict that enforces a constitutional rule.”

Why do you need an EO to reinforce your God-given right to bear arms? Sounds pretty stupid to me if you want or need a government-approved stamp to own a weapon.