Obama Takes Aim at Second Amendment
"The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States of America." Those words could have been spoken by any conservative in opposition to President Obama's newly announced executive actions targeting Second Amendment rights. But they weren't. They were uttered by then-Senator Barack Obama in 2008 in opposition to George W. Bush's limited use of executive authority.
“The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.”
Those words could have been spoken by any conservative in opposition to President Obama’s newly announced executive actions targeting Second Amendment rights. But they weren’t.
They were uttered by then-Senator Barack Obama in 2008 in opposition to George W. Bush’s limited use of executive authority.
So today, Barack Obama once again betrays his own words and assumes more and more power into the executive branch as he bypasses Congress completely. While his executive actions on so-called “gun violence” might make for good sound bites, they are very likely unconstitutional and they are bad policy.
For example, a primary goal of these executive actions appears to be forcing the registration of all gun sales. During a conference call with reporters [Monday], Attorney General Lynch was vague about the requirements for triggering registration.
Lynch said that the sale “can be as few as one or two [guns] depending upon the circumstances under which the person sells the gun.”
It is not hard to imagine this new rule preventing a father or grandfather from giving a hunting rifle to a son or grandson as a birthday present. Nor is it difficult to see how this action easily becomes the first step toward a national registry of all firearms in America.
Why is this happening now? This is Obama’s reaction to the San Bernardino terrorist attacks and it speaks volumes about the bizarre mentality of the left. His reaction isn’t to increase surveillance of radical mosques or reform our immigration laws, but to further restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans.
Is this what the American people want? Recent polls show the public is evenly split on whether more laws are needed.
Moreover, a recent analysis of Gallup polling over the course of the past year finds that gun control ranks at the bottom of the list of issues the public is most concerned about.
What is the public’s number one concern? Frustration with government!
When the president announced his new executive actions [yesterday] to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans to own a firearm, I was struck by his tone.
Obama seemed more agitated talking about this issue than when the Iranian Revolutionary Guard fired a rocket last week near a U.S. aircraft carrier. He seemed more angry [yesterday] than when we found out Iran was lying about its nuclear program. He showed more anger about guns in America than when Iran tested nuclear-capable missiles in violation of U.N. sanctions.
In fact, Obama seems more emotionally committed to taking away your guns than he is to preventing the mullahs of Iran from getting weapons of mass destruction.
Culture War Rages On
While events in Washington, D.C., frequently dominate the headlines, Washington State is making news for recent skirmishes in the ongoing culture war.
In recent weeks, we have told you about how unelected federal bureaucrats were forcing girls in public high schools to share showers, locker rooms and bathrooms with boys who think they are girls.
Well, the bureaucrats in Washington State got the message and decided to do the same thing there. In addition, private businesses and other “public accommodations” are being forced to comply with this new regulation. Nobody ever voted for this, but a spokeswoman for the Washington ACLU called the mandate a “fabulous thing.”
For some reason, I don’t think most residents of Washington State feel the same way. And radical bureaucrats in other jurisdictions would be well advised to consider the recent experience of Houston, Texas, where a similar ordinance was put on the ballot and repealed by an overwhelming vote of the people.
Meanwhile, another business in Washington State may be forced to close its doors because the left refuses to accommodate the deeply-held beliefs of the family that owns and operates it. This is becoming a far too common occurrence in a nation founded on the principle of religious freedom.
The state is attempting to force a privately owned pharmacy to sell so-called “emergency contraception” or abortion-inducing drugs in spite of the religious objections of the owners. Thirty pharmacies within five-miles offer the drugs, so it is hard for the government to claim that anyone is being deprived of services.
Nevertheless, the regulators have dug their heels in. Now the family is asking the Supreme Court to intervene. The court’s opinion in the Hobby Lobby case seemingly offers some hope, but it has turned down other religious liberty cases.