That is why many thought he would wait to make a court appointing before any such order. With recent events he is emboldend and acting sooner than some expected.They can be reversed by new administrations or for that matter congress at any time. He also can be reversed if the courts feel and order is against the Constitution in any way.
This would be true if he followed the Constitution or U.S. law. To him the Constitution is just an old document and in his eyes he is the law of the land. Tyranny at it's best equals an anti American in the people's WH, BHO.Condor;26407[B said:]Obama is very limited on what he can do via EO.[/B] Import bans, maybe increased ATF scrutiny, that's about all. He can't use an EO to ban guns, ammo, mags, increase taxes on ammo, etc.. If he tries, I certainly hopes he has his hand slapped by Congress or the Court.
Perhaps you should read the latest from the SCOTUS on the second amendment rights. You might be surprised at how much they can be changed and still up hold the second amendment. Keep in mind this is a conservative court not a liberal one.He has said that if congress does not do what he wants he can do anything by EO and would.
You must understand Obama does not care about the law or the Constitution. He is the one that said it is outdated and irrelevant and he was not bound bu it.
That should have been a warning. He now has his minions out starting to spread the word it is time to scrape it.
Who is going to stop him, who will arrest him not going to happen. He is daring them now to try
A bunch of crap is right.Bunch of crap
But who will enforce it ? Also we won by 1 vote on the last case. Obama said and I quote him . The Court got it wrong and I will fix that when I appoint one more Justice to the court.Perhaps you should read the latest from the SCOTUS on the second amendment rights. You might be surprised at how much they can be changed and still up hold the second amendment. Keep in mind this is a conservative court not a liberal one.
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
of for actually reading the law as written go to Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress
Ah you didn't read the law as laid down by the SCOTUS. It basically stated the following in District of Columbia v. Heller:But who will enforce it ? Also we won by 1 vote on the last case. Obama said and I quote him . The Court got it wrong and I will fix that when I appoint one more Justice to the court.
If you manage to file a case it will take a year or more to get the court if we are lucky.
You are assuming that he follows the law in the past that was a reasonable bet , with him it is not.
Any right you think you have under the Constitution can be changed with the filing of a case and 5 of 9 votes. 5 of 9 could rule tomorrow the 2nd does not apply to each citizen and that becomes the new law and all the books get changed.
I have followed the cases very closely and will keep doing so If we can win by one vote we can lose by one.
As you should get is the only right you have is to own a gun in the home but nothing on type of weapon that is legal or how one must obtain it. The Second Amendment has never been Codified with this being among a few rulings in regards to it but not covering all of it just parts.Decision
The Supreme Court held:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.
(c) The Court's interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28-30.
(d) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court's conclusion. Pp. 32-47.
(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition - in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute - would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.
The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr
Every one of the rights as given in the Constitution is limited and can be simply by a majority on the SCOTUS. Even can be done by a lower court if SCOTUS refuses to hear its ruling and overturn it. The same with any law congress passes as it stands until either someone brings suit to the courts or congress kills it later. Executive orders are very limited and none that can have long lasting effects.You miss the point the law is meaningless when 5 of 9 redefine the 2nd Amendment. That is how it works I did read it. They can over turn anything they want with 5 votes regardless of how anyone ruled in the past.
That is the plan they been working on of the last 4 years already.
Simple 5 say the 2nd was never meant to apply to an individual does not madder what anyone thinks or feels or ruled before it is gone.