1st Challenge to Obama's gun orders hits court

[Aim1]

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

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.

 

[Aim1]

No one has an idea if this lawsuit will prevail or not?

 

[gotmine]

It's what everyone has known for a long time.

 

[Sam1911]

He'd better have much better arguments than the ones that article claimed.

Seeing as we can't seem to discover aspects of law any of the President's executive actions would actually change, it would appear to be pretty difficult to support the idea that he's violating the 2nd Amendment.

 

[yugorpk]

I cant see what his proclamation actually changed other than it more or less helped out getting NFA stuff.

Whats to sue about?

 

[RPRNY]

He'd better have much better arguments than the ones that article claimed.

Seeing as we can't seem to discover what aspects of law any of the President's executive actions would actually change, it would appear to be pretty difficult to support the idea that he's violating the 2nd Amendment.

This.

A faulty challenge that fails accordingly is worse than no challenge.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The complaint may be read here. I doubt that it'll be going anywhere.

All Executive Orders are published in the Federal Register, or you can find all Executive Orders issued by Obama here. None of those Executive Orders deal with guns?

All we've actually seen have been on the order of vague suggestions to subordinate departments to try to address in some way certain issues. The most recent batch was outlined here, including:

• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks....

  
  

• ...Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch has sent a letter to States highlighting the importance of receiving complete criminal history....

  
  

• ....The Attorney General convened a call with U.S. Attorneys around the country to direct federal prosecutors to continue to focus on smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws....

  
  

• ...ATF is finalizing a rule to ensure that dealers who ship firearms notify law enforcement if their guns are lost or stolen in transit....

What it all boils down to is that various Departments in the Executive Branch are being urged to pursue rule making with regard to some matters and urged to shift priorities ast to others.

 

[Ignition Override]

Mr. Frank E: Some of you describe Obama's Exec. Actions, but then others describe his Exec. Orders.
Isn't the issue now his Exec. Actions? It's hard to keep it straight with both types mentioned in just a few replies.

Supposedly E. Actions only put pressure on agencies to enforce what already exists, or were these new actions issued with the clout to have the authority of Exec. Orders in camouflage, thereby trying to change what already is on the books?

 

[Sam1911]

What's being pointed out is that neither this President, nor the prior, have issued ANY Executive ORDERS regarding guns. None. Anyone talking about fighting Obama's Executive Orders doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

Executive Actions are more of a staff memo telling his executive branch underlings where to prioritize their efforts and how to improve certain tasks. That's what's actually happened here, and the media storm over it and the backlash in Congress and the gunny world is just enormously funny. Even the more lucid anti-gunners are saying these things are not worth a toot, but the press has bought this as something akin to the next version of GCA'68 ... and some of us seem to believe them!

 

[Frank Ettin]

There have been no new Executive Orders. Executive Orders are a formal thing, and there are procedures for issuing Executive Orders. All Executive Orders are published in the Federal Register, or you can find all Executive Orders issued by Obama here. None of those Executive Orders deal with guns?

All this hoopla now is about so called "executive actions." That really doesn't mean anything beyond simply actions taken by an executive. In plain English Obama having his morning coffee is an "executive action." In this context it's really a sort of made-up concept intended to give weight to to certain presidential comments.

In this particular situation, the so called executive actions we're concerned about are fairly vague statements about what Obama, as senior manager of the Executive Branch of the federal government, would like to see done in connection with guns. These vague statements were set out in this "fact sheet" published by the White House.

All of the confusion seems to arise from the fact that a lot of folks don't want to bother figuring out what is actually going on.

 

[Metal God]

The FBI will hire more than 230 additional examiners and other staff to help process these background checks.

I was under the impression that the Federal back ground check is done electronically . How does 230 more employees help my LGS's computer talk to the Feds computer . Or is it that when a back ground check is done . There is someone at the other end actually looking at my history in real time while I wait at the counter ? If not how does more employees help process the back ground check ?

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is making clear that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.

ATF is finalizing a rule to require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust, corporation, or other legal entity.

If most private party sales are not subject to back ground checks . What stops a guy from buying 30 guns one day and the next day selling them for profit . Would that not be a straw purchase ? The guy never intended on keeping the 30 guns he bought the day before .

One of the things I believe they are going to try is saying if you buy and sell more then "X" amount of firearms per year . You must get an FFL . Regardless if they are private part buys or not . I'm thinking of it like buying and selling cars . I don't know the number but here in CA if you buy and sell lets say more then 5 cars a year . You have to be a licensed car dealer . Is there a way to force that type of regulation to firearms sales .

If that's the case they would need more agents to run all there new sting operations .

 

[Frank Ettin]

I was under the impression that the Federal back ground check is done electronically . How does 230 more employees help my LGS's computer talk to the Feds computer ....

It can be done by computer or by telephone.

Also, where does the information in the database come from? How does it get entered into the database? Who is responsible for assuring that updates are done properly? Who deals with system problems?

If most private party sales are not subject to back ground checks . What stops a guy from buying 30 guns one day and the next day selling them for profit .....

He can be prosecuted for engaging in the business of a dealer in firearms without the necessary license.

That's nothing new. We discussed the applicable law almost three years ago in the thread, What is "Dealing in Firearms Without a License?".

 

[Metal God]

Also, where does the information in the database come from? How does it get entered into the database? Who is responsible for assuring that updates are done properly? Who deals with system problems?

I'd have to say there is likely twice as many people there now doing the job then is needed like all government agencies . Clearly the way to fix it is to throw more money at it :banghead:

Honestly , is that to say they can't get the info in the data base efficiently right now or the new guidelines will burden the system to the point of needing more people to keep it up to date ?

 

[alsaqr]

Despite all the hooplaw by Obama and gun rights folks; the fact is that very little has changed. The term "unlicensed dealer" remains largely undefined. One thing is certain: If a guy buys and sells guns for profit then he's an "unlicensed dealer". It has been that way for a long time.

i used to see the same guys at gun show after gun show selling guns without an FFL. Knew one of those guys. He stopped selling guns when he got a warning letter from the BATFE to either get an FFL or "cease and desist".

Worldnetdaily is the home of conspiracy theorist extraordinaire Alex Jones. The purpose of the linked article in wnd is to inflame those who don't understand how the executive branch works.

There are no executive orders on gun control: Never have been.

BTW: Because of an increase in gun sales the FBI took all the folks who were handling appeals of denials and put them on the phones doing background checks. If you got denied don't expect a resolution anytime soon.

 

[Metal God]

I read the whole first page of that thread and if you ask me . Putting a number on the amount of firearms one can buy and sell in a year is exactly what I predict they will do . I'm not for that in any way but after reading that page. I can see all kinds of ways to manipulate the law . Would it be smart to do "no" but I see a lot of intent in there that needs to be proven .

 

[hso]

I'd have to say there is likely twice as many people there now doing the job then is needed

You'd be wrong in this case. The NICS system has seen huge increases in load as the banic has caused people to purchase unprecedented numbers of firearms. That demand has not been served by an increase in staffing. Also consider that as the load goes up the number of marginal requests for approvals go up and those have to be handled by a person and not a computer system.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I'd have to say there is likely twice as many people there now doing the job then is needed...

And since you have no clue how the work is actually done, or how much work there is, you have no idea how many people are needed to do it.

 

[Metal God]

Frank:

haha I don't need to know the scope of the work , just that the government is the ones doing it . If it's almost impossible to be fired . The majority will have no incentive to work as hard and fast as they can . Next time you're in a government build . Watch how nothing is being done with ANY sense of urgency or even a slightly elevated pace . Not even how fast they move one piece of paper from there desk to the basket a foot away . Now go to a non Union private sector building and tell me what you see .

In all seriousness , you are correct as was hso .

I think we all know how government employment works . You have one employee you get one man hour of work . You have two employees , you get 1-1/2 man hours of work and so on .

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I think we all know how government employment works . You have one employee you get one man hour of work . You have two employees , you get 1-1/2 man hours of work and so on .

No, actually we don't. And making facile, facetious assumptions doesn't get us anywhere.

Let's deal with fact for which we have documentation and evidence instead of fantasy which we like because it satisfies our prejudices.

 

[Metal God]

OK you win , I'll stop trying to be funny . You clearly have some sort of connection to this topic and a little sarcasm appears not to be tolerated .

 

[Frank Ettin]

...You clearly have some sort of connection to this topic...

What I have a connection to, and a decided preference for, is fact, evidence and good information.

So, thank you.

 

[Jeff H]

OK you win , I'll stop trying to be funny . You clearly have some sort of connection to this topic and a little sarcasm appears not to be tolerated .

In case you didn't know, Frank is a retired lawyer and researches most of his legal topics extensively before he posts.

What I have a connection to, and a decided preference for, is fact, evidence and good information.

So, thank you.

 

[Metal God]

I know in general who Frank is , he is part of at least one other forum I'm a member of and I respect his views and posts .

Thanks though

 

[Tirod]

Point being, the dreaded "Executive Actions" that some fearmongers like to post about with inflammatory prose are at best "Executive Suggestions."

If, Obama, being an all powerful and nearly supernatural being as some think, he'd be able to whip out an Order or two and just do it. But, also be a Constitutional Lecturer on the senior circuit at his former job, there just may be some actual education and reasoning behind his complete lack of lightning bolts being thrown at us or the NRA.

Basically, he does exactly what any past President has done - jawbones and lectures.

Far more important is the recent decision, tepid as it may be, to remove the National Security blanket over the coverup for Fast and Furious. While not a complete slam dunk, the efforts to get documents released are now supported by a Federal Court decision. Expect an appeal, but the thing won't die and go away, and the longer the Administration tries to keep it in it's grave, the more people are trying to dig it up to examine the cause of death for hundreds - if not thousands - of Mexicans and at least one Agent. It's no help El Chapo had a .50 BMG sniper now documented as being walked over the border.

The cryfest over suggestions is basically a smoke screen to divert our attention from other much more serious issues - like F&F - that can and will seriously taint the Obama Legacy and damage his party's attempt at reelection.

 

[Drail]

As I see it the "presidential farts" aren't really a problem. The problem is the BATFE and the Justice Dept. believing that they can do anything they want because Obama said it's OK for them to "define" anything any way they want.