Is President Obama’s Gun Control Executive Action Constitutional?

[imyoda]

Is President Obama’s Gun Control Executive Action Constitutional?
(VIDEO)
Is this professor correct on Obama’s Gun Control Executive Action?
President Obama released details this week on a series of executive actions which he says will reduce gun violence. People on both sides of the issue either love it or hate it. But rather than delve into the usual arguments on gun control, I recently spoke with South Texas College of Law Constitutional Expert Professor Gerald Treece on whether President Obama’s executive action on gun control is constitutionally sound.
SEE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h0nzTs2ocfo


There was a great uproar when President Obama issued an E.O. about guns and gun safety..........

Many said he did not have the authority to issue the E.O. ..........

Others said E.O's was unconstitutional...........

And the same from the GOP and some Democrats in Congress were equally upset.........


And if I recall correctly the majority in Congress said they were going to sue the President.......

I'm not sure if the did........

The GOP Congress is/has said they were going to0 sue the President about so many damn issues........

I for one, just cannot keep track..........

I seem to recall SCOTUS hearing a few days ago rendered a decision on one of the GOP law suits.........

For what I don't remember........

Some other suits were rejected by the court because Congress did not have standing to sue the President.......

And another set of Congressional "We're going to sue the SOB" law suits.........

Are being shuffled/refused/investigating the merits of the suit to/from/between Law Firms in the process of drawing up papers...........

When in fact, there will never be a filing of the suit because the Court have some deep belly laughs as the throw the case out of court .....

And possibly in some cases refer the name of the lawyers to the State/Federal Bar for disciplinary actions........

What are your views/thoughts/ideas with regard to her subject?

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I don't see the problem. Our king has spoken. Now all we have to do is rise from our knees and obey.

 

[joG]

Is President Obama’s Gun Control Executive Action Constitutional?
(VIDEO)
Is this professor correct on Obama’s Gun Control Executive Action?
President Obama released details this week on a series of executive actions which he says will reduce gun violence. People on both sides of the issue either love it or hate it. But rather than delve into the usual arguments on gun control, I recently spoke with South Texas College of Law Constitutional Expert Professor Gerald Treece on whether President Obama’s executive action on gun control is constitutionally sound.
SEE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h0nzTs2ocfo


There was a great uproar when President Obama issued an E.O. about guns and gun safety..........

Many said he did not have the authority to issue the E.O. ..........

Others said E.O's was unconstitutional...........

And the same from the GOP and some Democrats in Congress were equally upset.........


And if I recall correctly the majority in Congress said they were going to sue the President.......

I'm not sure if the did........

The GOP Congress is/has said they were going to0 sue the President about so many damn issues........

I for one, just cannot keep track..........

I seem to recall SCOTUS hearing a few days ago rendered a decision on one of the GOP law suits.........

For what I don't remember........

Some other suits were rejected by the court because Congress did not have standing to sue the President.......

And another set of Congressional "We're going to sue the SOB" law suits.........

Are being shuffled/refused/investigating the merits of the suit to/from/between Law Firms in the process of drawing up papers...........

When in fact, there will never be a filing of the suit because the Court have some deep belly laughs as the throw the case out of court .....

And possibly in some cases refer the name of the lawyers to the State/Federal Bar for disciplinary actions........

What are your views/thoughts/ideas with regard to her subject?

He is at heart still a social worker looking for a legacy. So sad that he doesn't seem to understand that his specialty and the philosophy behind it are the major driving force that has landed us in the present pickle. More of the same won't do it Mr President.

 

[OpportunityCost]

What's missing most from this thread are some facts. So, lets see the White House Fact sheet : https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...tive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

Point 1 in that is regarding background checks. Well, the WH is asserting that trusts don't need background checks. That is flatly false. https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2014/05/does-a-trust-need-a-nics-check.html

Point 2 is make our communities safer from gun violence, there is a lost firearm provision mentioned and a brief mention of sentencing. Weak gun sentencing is why we have some of the problems we do. So, maybe.

Point 3 is about mental health reporting for blocking reporting of someone that should be barred from a gun purchase. Frankly, if such a person is in this state, it should go before a court both to judge their mental health, get them help for it and allow due process to restrict their rights. I agree we need more controls, but it still needs to be done legally.

Point 4. Smart gun technology. It has been a monumental fail to date. The tech has to go a long way before it will be a consideration.

After that is supposed reinforcement of what the White House believes but it falls short of truth. Look at what they pre-suppose regarding sales and trusts. They believe trusts don't have background checks, they do. They suppose felons can buy over the web, they cant legally, background checks have to happen to finalize a sale or its illegal.

Maybe the White House should quit talking about new rules and just enforce the laws that are already there.

 

[American]

What's missing most from this thread are some facts. So, lets see the White House Fact sheet : https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...tive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

Point 1 in that is regarding background checks. Well, the WH is asserting that trusts don't need background checks. That is flatly false. https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2014/05/does-a-trust-need-a-nics-check.html

Point 2 is make our communities safer from gun violence, there is a lost firearm provision mentioned and a brief mention of sentencing. Weak gun sentencing is why we have some of the problems we do. So, maybe.

Point 3 is about mental health reporting for blocking reporting of someone that should be barred from a gun purchase. Frankly, if such a person is in this state, it should go before a court both to judge their mental health, get them help for it and allow due process to restrict their rights. I agree we need more controls, but it still needs to be done legally.

Point 4. Smart gun technology. It has been a monumental fail to date. The tech has to go a long way before it will be a consideration.

After that is supposed reinforcement of what the White House believes but it falls short of truth. Look at what they pre-suppose regarding sales and trusts. They believe trusts don't have background checks, they do. They suppose felons can buy over the web, they cant legally, background checks have to happen to finalize a sale or its illegal.

Maybe the White House should quit talking about new rules and just enforce the laws that are already there.

It appears they don't know what they are.

 

[natsb]

It appears they don't know what they are.

More likely... They don't care what they are.

 

[American]

More likely... They don't care what they are.

I disagree, it appears they can't even publically say what the laws actually are.

 

[Crimefree]

What's missing most from this thread are some facts. So, lets see the White House Fact sheet : https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...tive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our

Point 1 in that is regarding background checks. Well, the WH is asserting that trusts don't need background checks. That is flatly false. https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2014/05/does-a-trust-need-a-nics-check.html

Point 2 is make our communities safer from gun violence, there is a lost firearm provision mentioned and a brief mention of sentencing. Weak gun sentencing is why we have some of the problems we do. So, maybe.

Point 3 is about mental health reporting for blocking reporting of someone that should be barred from a gun purchase. Frankly, if such a person is in this state, it should go before a court both to judge their mental health, get them help for it and allow due process to restrict their rights. I agree we need more controls, but it still needs to be done legally.

Point 4. Smart gun technology. It has been a monumental fail to date. The tech has to go a long way before it will be a consideration.

After that is supposed reinforcement of what the White House believes but it falls short of truth. Look at what they pre-suppose regarding sales and trusts. They believe trusts don't have background checks, they do. They suppose felons can buy over the web, they cant legally, background checks have to happen to finalize a sale or its illegal.

Maybe the White House should quit talking about new rules and just enforce the laws that are already there.

The best option would be to scrap all those laws as none of them work and put the billions spent and resources to use in solving crime. Can anyone think of a good reason to appease a bunch of fanatical liars.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

The best option would be to scrap all those laws as none of them work and put the billions spent and resources to use in solving crime. Can anyone think of a good reason to appease a bunch of fanatical liars.

But to them, owning a gun is a crime.

 

[ludin]

of course it is unconstitutional.
the president doesn't have the power to write or change law.

the only thing that an EO can do is clear up something that is ambigious.
since there isn't anything ambigious in the law it is fairly easy to say that it is unconstitutional.