Does he have a leg to stand on?
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/01/1st-challenge-to-obamas-gun-orders-hits-court/#bAkEV7oQaBdxpFZV.99
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/01/1st-challenge-to-obamas-gun-orders-hits-court/#bAkEV7oQaBdxpFZV.99
1ST CHALLENGE TO OBAMA'S GUN ORDERS HITS COURT
Case argues president can't 'legislate' 2nd Amendment
January 19th, 2016
Arguing that there’s nothing in the U.S. Constitution that allows the president to order changes to the Second Amendment, a terrorist-suing lawyer who depends on his personal firearms for self-defense has filed the first legal challenge to President Obama’s executive orders on guns.
Just two weeks ago, Obama ordered the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and other agencies to enforce a new interpretation of a law passed by Congress. Obama, citing his disagreement with Congress, ordered new requirements for anyone wanting to sell even a single gun. But the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Palm Beach Division, by civil rights activist attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch explains, “There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which offers any authority or role of the executive branch with regard to legislating to change the rights under the Second Amendment.” The lawsuit names as defendants Obama, AFT Deputy Director Thomas Brandon and Attorney General Loretta Lynch. It alleges damages from “the abridgement of his fundamental rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
His complaint alleges the executive actions “are unconstitutional abuses of the president’s and executive branch’s role in our nation’s constitutional architecture and exceed the powers of the president as set forth in the U.S. Constitution.” He says that since the agency assigned by Congress to enforce the law “has already previously interpreted and applied the relevant legislation differently, it is clearly arbitrary and capricious for the defendants … to now suddenly adopt and implement a new and different interpretation for no other reason than the political preferences of temporary occupants of elected office.”
Klayman contends that even if the White House wanted to impose new rules, Obama’s pronouncements this month violated the Administrative Procedures Act.