Obama will do this and let the courts sort it out. It doesn't help that the GOP, now defunct, hasn't fought any other Obama executive orders.
FYI
FYI
someone please give me the acronyms.
EO? FBR? LVO?
I know what the NFA is.
I hate acronyms.
It’s up to the people now.
He and they have to disarm before they come for our money, land and stuff they want to “redistribute.” The people they want to disarm most completely are White.
EO’s only apply to US Citizens.....
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23398430/060225-—Eric-Williams-Show-—Excerpt
The Fourteenth Amendment - Revisited
First - forget everything you ever knew about the Fourteenth Amendment - then carefully read the below expose:
Take the Amendment’s opening clauses, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state where in they reside...”
Now, consider the same clauses with the central, explanatory clause removed, and it then reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside...”
Under the rules of English grammar and punctuation, the second clause, “and under the jurisdiction thereof, “ is an explanatory clause. Explanatory clauses do not add to nor in any way change or alter the meaning of the writing in which they are included; their purpose is to explain. As it is self evident that naturalized persons volunteer into the jurisdiction of the United States as an inherent aspect of their voluntary naturalization, the explanatory obviously was not relevant thereto. Therefore the inclusion of this explanatory clause is to clarify that persons born in the
United States, in deference to the Thirteenth Amendment, do not become and are not, at the moment of their birth in the United States, automatically citizens thereof because such newborn persons are incapable of personally volunteering themselves into servitude. I contend that the inclusion of “persons naturalized” was somewhat obfuscatory.
Please note that when the explanatory words (”, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “), are omitted, the entire impact and meaning changes, or rather (and more correctly), the true meaning become obfuscated. The explanatory clause, (”, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “), clearly adds a second criteria necessary to establishing citizenship and clearly indicates that there are two distinctly separate criteria both of which must be met in order for
persons born in the United States to be classified or designated as citizens thereof.
The words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “ clearly provide, recognize and acknowledge that there are persons born in the United States who are not thereby automatically subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and that such persons, by such birth, are not automatically classified or designated to be citizens of the United States.
(I strongly contend that this includes all persons born in the United States of parents when the parents themselves are citizens of the United States. That is, no one becomes a citizen of the United States just because the person is born in the United States. “Born in the United States” and “born under the jurisdiction thereof” are not one and the same as is commonly misunderstood. If the two statements meant the same thing then only one would have been needed. Moreover, the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition of involuntary servitude prevents anyone from being designated to be a citizen of the United States based merely on the location of the person’s birth in the United States).
By law, how are executive orders challenged?
Once this predicted edict is made, would any governmental body be able to immediately challenge its Constitutionality/legality, or would a citizen need to be arrested in violation of the order to have standing to challenge its validity?
This would certainly trigger Civil War Two.
He doesn’t have the authority to circumvent the constitution with an EO. I wouldn’t be surprised if he tries and I wouldn’t be surprised if Boehner lets it slide.
That will be a hard road for Obama to hoe since Congress explicitly defined NFA weapons as either 1) guns capable of fully automatic fire, or 2) long guns with barrel length less than 16 inches. Pistols and revolvers are explicitly exempted from the NFA.
Executive Orders can be challenged in court just like anything else. For instance, the birth control mandate currently before the courts was an Executive Order.
Register my @$$!
The implementation of which would not have prevented any of the recent attacks using these weapons.
To do that, they will have to take the next, logical (from their point of view) step (which would be easy if registration is in place) - confiscation.
Look for it to land up in the courts.
People will just simply hide their guns.
This may make some uncomfortable.
But this is our Lexington and Concord.
Like in 1775, the stand will be taken for the same reason.
The end of the Second Amendment means the compact known as the Constitution is broken, thus there is no longer a reason for the governed to give their consent to those who would rule over us.
IMO this is just a bunch of scare talk. BHO does not have the authority to institute gun registration which is what this would be. It would create such a backlash from the public that States would just nullify it and Congress would be forced to act. Most people would not even bother to do it. If they pushed the issue it might even set off CWII.
More likely Barry will just pump up the rhetoric and let Feinstein introduce her gun control legislation for the umpteenth time where it will get buried in committee as usual. Its a win win for Barry.
Unintended consequence: MILLIONS of new NFA weapons-holders. And that makes us realize we can easily own full-auto as well.
Handguns are IMMEDIATELY after this.
NFA weapons, all.