This feels good, but I’m not encouraged by it. In fact, I think it’s a mistake. To try to define “militia” through an executive order, and to specify only certain weapons as appropriate for a person to own in case s/he has to employ that weapon as part of a “militia” as defined in the Executive Order, is actually limiting, and can become a point of contention that just muddies the waters further. I think this E.O. is a mistake despite it’s (hopefully) good intent.
Read it carefully – it is only an E.O., and therefore not law, yet we just saw a Circuit Court overturn an E.O., despite some solid basis to the E.O., and now that makes it a precedent. Whether the Supremes weigh in or not, and certainly until they do, it is a precedent that can be used against the Administration (or even future administrations) going forward. This “militia” E.O. could end up being the same potential self-laid minefield.
"Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."