It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama getting sued for his gun control executive 'actions'

page: 2
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Define "grabbing guns" - what does that mean to you?

Please cite your references with statements Obama has made and actions he has directed.

Do you still own guns? Have any been taken away from you?

- AB


I can define gun grabbing for you...read H.R. 4269 , a bill sponsored by 123 democrats which bans many semi-auto rifles , shot-guns and pistols....would be gleefully signed into law by Obama if it could get passed and be placed on his desk. Not even mentioning all the banning and restrictions in New York , Connecticut and California for magazines over 10 rounds and AR-15 type weapons. And yes, we still own guns , but are possibly getting to the point where we might have to use them to keep them.




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Can you sue a sitting POTUS?

I know you can impeach him but to personally sue him?

Didn't the US house of reps try and sue Obama in 2014?

The USG really hates their president eh?




You can, within certain limits. You can bring a lawsuit in a case like this in an attempt to prove that the president exceeded his Constitutional authority on a particular matter, seeking that the courts block whatever action the president may have taken. The president does generally have immunity from civil suits seeking financial damage awards arising from actions taken within the bounds of the lawful duties of the presidency.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: conspiracytheoristIAM

Hmm...

From Article 1, Section 8

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


And the Second Amendment

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Seems to me that a few people are violation of Oath of Office. Or do we subjectively "enforce laws on the books" now?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: conspiracytheoristIAM

In addition to all that, I'd also throw in his repeated praise for Australia's gun laws. You know, the same laws that mandated a forced 'buy back' (aka confiscation) of certain firearms. And don't forget about Obama and Holder's pet project, 'Fast and Furious', which was intended to drum up support for domestic gun control.

Honestly, I don't know who the Obama supporters think they're fooling with this one. The fact that we've had no major gun restrictions under Obama has virtually nothing to do with Obama, but rather a Republican Congress, with vocal and essentially unanimous support of tens of millions of gun owners, that has repeatedly rejected any gun control proposals coming from that side of the political isle.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: conspiracytheoristIAM

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Define "grabbing guns" - what does that mean to you?

Please cite your references with statements Obama has made and actions he has directed.

Do you still own guns? Have any been taken away from you?

- AB


I can define gun grabbing for you...read H.R. 4269 , a bill sponsored by 123 democrats which bans many semi-auto rifles , shot-guns and pistols....would be gleefully signed into law by Obama if it could get passed and be placed on his desk. Not even mentioning all the banning and restrictions in New York , Connecticut and California for magazines over 10 rounds and AR-15 type weapons. And yes, we still own guns , but are possibly getting to the point where we might have to use them to keep them.


Hey CT,

Here is where I think we are speaking in different languages. I define "gun grab" as jack booted thugs going door to door with heavy arms and taking guns away from people - OR - requiring people to turn in their legally purchased weapons with no choice, or they will face legal punishment.

"Gun control" is different, to me, in that it is not about taking away guns from citizens, its about limiting sales of certain classes of guns in the future, from when the legislation is signed.

Do you define "gun grab" as any limitation on gun purchases at all? I'm sincerely curious, as I think it would help me understand my fellow ATSers better.

Please - anyone - feel free to answer this? Thanks!

- AB



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Define "grabbing guns" - what does that mean to you?

Please cite your references with statements Obama has made and actions he has directed.

Do you still own guns? Have any been taken away from you?

- AB

Would you say the same thing if Obama was writing executive orders limiting which women are allowed to have abortions performed?


What the heck? How does this have ANYTHING to do with abortion???????
Your analogy makes no sense. Seriously.

If a President put out Executive Actions stating that the CURRENT LAWS ON THE BOOKS should be upheld in regards to abortions, why would I have a problem with that?

- AB
edit on 21-1-2016 by AboveBoard because: icons not working... ???



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Well we all know that when it comes to rights to gun the Supreme court will have to step in eventually if the government try to violate constitutional rights, without legislation.

Executive orders are like crap thrown to the ceiling to see if they stick.




edit on 21-1-2016 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

"Gun Grab" is a metaphor.

Not everything is a literal prim-proper-perfect scenario.




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Well it would help if we defined it, xuenchen - if I've been misunderstanding what people mean, then I could understand more what they were talking about, right? I might even agree with some of what they say IF I KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN.

My question was sincere. I wasn't trolling. Geez.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Here's an academic way...




: to quickly take and hold (someone or something) with your hand or arms

: to take or get (something) in a quick and informal way

: to get the attention or interest of (someone or something)

Grab


#3 is probably applicable



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Gee, thanks xuenchen.


Well, if number 3 (: to get the attention or interest of (someone or something) ) is part of everyone's worry, then I don't know what to say other than "enjoy the anxiety" because you are creating it for yourselves... lol!


- AB



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

I thought you would enjoy that one.




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard



If a President put out Executive Actions stating that the CURRENT LAWS ON THE BOOKS should be upheld in regards to abortions, why would I have a problem with that?

That is hardly what I wrote. Here is what I wrote:



Would you say the same thing if Obama was writing executive orders limiting which women are allowed to have abortions performed?

I asked you a question, and you answered a different question.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Oh lord...here we go again...with people who have absolutely zero understanding of the President's constitutional powers. The president, as chief executive, is fully within his constitutional authority to direct the justice department (and any other dept. under executive direction) to prioritize their efforts. There is nothing criminal about this except for the absolute waste of taxpayer money the President's opponents have spent on this lost cause. THAT should be criminal!



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

This lawsuit is filed in Civil Court, not criminal.




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
it doesn`t really matter, eventually the conservatives will control both houses and the presidency and then EVERYTHING Obama did will be undone.It may not happen this year or 4 years from now but it will happen eventually.
Obama`s legacy will be that of the forgotten president who accomplished nothing that lasted, he`ll be another jimmy carter.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

It may well be that these actions are legal, but whether it is or is not is ultimately determined by the judicial branch and the civil court system. Those who believe that the president may have overstepped his constitutional authority are well within their legal rights to bring the matter to the federal courts in an attempt to block his actions. Sorry, but that's the way the system works.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Your question was irrelevant. I fixed your metaphor. There are no Executive Orders on gun control, there are executive actions, and there is a difference. So you have created a lovely strawman. If Obama starts making Executive Orders limiting abortion to certain women, I will rationally assess the issue and then tell you how I feel about it.

Executive Actions are INFORMAL and carry NO legal weight, unlike Executive Orders. Think of them as Presidential wish lists.

An Executive Order is a much stronger thing. It is legally binding, official and acts like a mandate which is given to the federal agencies in the Executive branch.

So, if a President made an Executive Action regarding limiting Acess to guns by people who are already legally prohibited from getting them, I would see it as what the President wishes to have happen.

AB



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard
You are correct.
I saw the light a few hours ago on another thread.
Obama is only trying to save American lives.
He isn't a bad guy, only Republicans are bad.
Guns are bad and have no purpose other than to kill people.
Oh, and thank you for answering my exact question. You are awesome.

edit on b000000312016-01-21T19:16:28-06:0007America/ChicagoThu, 21 Jan 2016 19:16:28 -0600700000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

*sigh*

The only "light" I hoped you would see was the fact that the Executive Actions don't mean "official" or "legally binding." They don't come with any power other than that of the bully pulpit. But hey, sarcasm is easier, I guess.

I'm not your enemy.

peace,
AB



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join