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.
WASHINGTON -- A Bush-era federal law that protects gun dealers from liability for murders committed with guns from their shops is under attack in an Alaska court, and that has led the Justice Department and gun-control activists to intervene in the case.
That assertion prompted the Justice Department to intervene, with Obama administration lawyers seeking to protect the law signed by President George W. Bush.
The Justice Department argues that Congress was within its power to pass the firearms industry shield law because the Constitution allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by burdman30ott6
Are we seriously to the point that people are complaining about Obama doing his job and defending America's laws no matter which president signed it???
I'm just at a loss...the man can do nothing right.
Originally posted by nwillitts
yea,your stupid.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by burdman30ott6
Are we seriously to the point that people are complaining about Obama doing his job and defending America's laws no matter which president signed it???
I'm just at a loss...the man can do nothing right.
Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Alaska High Court Reviews Federal Gun-shop Liability law
WASHINGTON -- A Bush-era federal law that protects gun dealers from liability for murders committed with guns from their shops is under attack in an Alaska court, and that has led the Justice Department and gun-control activists to intervene in the case.
Most interesting to me is this:
That assertion prompted the Justice Department to intervene, with Obama administration lawyers seeking to protect the law signed by President George W. Bush.
The Justice Department argues that Congress was within its power to pass the firearms industry shield law because the Constitution allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
In my eyes, this paints a very colorful, detailed picture of just how desperate the administration is to save their health care act. There simply is no other explanation for why Obama would fight this outside of the political can of worms having "You say you're all about Congress' right to regulate interstate commerce... but look at how you felt about that in this case." thrown into his face over the Affordable Care Act.
The Act in question here, which President Bush signed is detailed Here
But what about the US Senate?
The Senate's Vote on S 397
Obama (D-IL), Nay
I find irony here, delicious, tasty irony. The fight to salvage Obamacare has essentially forced Obama to go against his own nature and attempt to defend a more minor issue which, given an open situation, history seems to indicate he would never defend. I expect more of these little "against his nature" foibles to arise in the leadup to November. Should be interesting to see how they go.