When Obama was unable to get immigration laws passed through Congress, he simply spoke new laws into existence, something the Constitution only invests Congress with the power to do.  While that is tied up in court, he has basically commanded the DHS to stop arresting and deporting illegals.  Now, with the upcoming campaign for president just months away, there is talk of new executive orders.

Fox reports:

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton on Monday proposed tighter gun-control measures, including expanded background checks, and suggested that if elected she would use executive powers to achieve her goals.

“I want to push hard to get more sensible restraints,” Clinton said on NBC’s “Today” show. “I want to work with Congress, but I will look at ways as president.”

If she gets in, there is no doubt that she will not only try and push this through, but also might simply pull and have Obama and speak this law into existence.  It is unclear what the legal ramifications would be, but it is sure that she will try.  She is not only going after the buyer, she is also going after the manufacturer.

Fox continues:

Her campaign says her proposals also include a repeal of legislation shielding gun manufacturers, distributors and dealers from most liability suits, even in the case of mass shootings like the one that killed nine students and teachers at an Oregon community college on Thursday.

If Clinton pushed this, then victims’ family could then sue the makers of the gun used.  This for 2^nd Amendment opponents this is welcome news.  It would necessarily jack up the cost of buying a weapon.  The company liability insurance would skyrocket.   But there is a problem, this could open up other lanes of litigation that no one could expect.

Why would Ford, Chevy, and Dodge not be as liable for deaths caused by drunk drivers?  They built and sold the vehicles that the drunk drove.  Are they not, like the gun seller, selling a dangerous product?  Well, no one would think that that was a good idea.  But it is the same reasoning.  And Clinton is not alone.

The Daily Caller reports:

The White House is considering whether President Obama can take executive action to enforce stronger gun control measures, White House spokesman Joshua Earnest said on Monday.

“The president has frequently pushed his team to consider a range of executive actions that could more effectively keep guns out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn’t have access to them,” Earnest said Monday. “That’s something that is ongoing here.”

It is possible that the current President will beat her to the punch? It is no surprise that Obama’s legal team is checking into the viability of such an order.  The question is whether or not either side has heard about the 2^nd Amendment or knows what it says.  And there is one more question that must be pondered.

Is any law, executive or otherwise, constitutional?  Think about what I am asking.  Where can we find, in any article of the Constitution, an exception to the 2^nd Amendment?  Where is there any mention of mental capacity as a requirement for ownership?

See, here is, again, the nose of the camel—once we start, before long, we have abolished the 2^nd Amendment.  Who determines mental capability?  No, this is not a good sign.  This kind of thinking cannot continue to go unchallenged.  We must let our representatives know that we will not kowtow to this kind of tyranny.

*Article by Michael Ware