ERIC HOLDER Tells Reporters ... OBAMA TO PASS GUN CONTROL THROUGH EXECUTIVE ORDER.... Here it comes!!!!!!

Says Action to come within the next couple of weeks.......

We have numbers on our side. What are they going to do with 100 million criminals?

that EO will be in direct violation of the Constitution....

Just like when they passed their hundreds of other unconstitutional EO's, I don't think they care.

Fear-mongering BS, and I can't stand Barry and Holder.

Your underestimating of their evil will be the death of you.

Gunrunner Eric Holder brings the news of another obama dictator ruling concerning the rights of Americans no surprise here.

Why can't he EX-Order the Fiscal Cliff deal then?

I agree.... for the last four year's I've heard even the most pro-gun people swear that they would never try to do this. And now here it comes.

These people don't care about the Constitution.

He'll I'd be surprised if he DIDN'T.

Can I holder your barrys?

Aren't they all?

I think that's what's so messed up about this. How could people not have seen this coming? This guy has passed unconstitutional Executive Orders after unconstitutional Executive Orders yet no one thought he would do it for guns?

where did you read this?

It's not in the article

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Jon Roland:

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

I'm sorry but did u actually read it because the whole article is about Obama's task force and holders press conference where he announced it....

Also.... Obama himself told the task force he wanted them to look at using executive orders.....

Obama promised to make abating gun violence a priority in his second-term agenda, and he said he wants recommendations for legislative action and executive orders. The topic will be part of his State of the Union address in late January.

From The Detroit News: [link to www.detroitnews.com]

The correct term is bypass not pass. An executive order bypasses the law.

So if Holder says Obama will pass gun control, it is a lie. It is bypassing the Constitution. Or more correctly, it is VIOLATING the constitution.

once again:


16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Jon Roland:

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.

I would suggest everyone KNOW this inside and out... it is an affirmative defense.

You're 100% Right.

All part of the plan. They want to fundamentally change this country and I beliee crashing it into the ground is part of their plan so they can rebuild it in their image.

If a tyrant tells you what to do then thats bad. If you do what the tyrant tells you then thats even worse!

Considering they want to kill 6 billion people?

Thread: comrade obama will keep on sending mkultra assassins to gun down your school children until you capitulate and surrender your firearms

Also all they have to do is ban the ammo. Once the ammo is banned those 100 million guns are worthless

I am sure people who stocked up will share if it comes to needing to overthrow an illegal government.

Since when did Barry Soetoro care about the Consitution?

Seems like this is his raison d'etre.

Piers Morgan stoking the populace. This is his moment.

That's funny. I don't think people who stocked up are sharing with anyone

Harrison J. Bounel is an appalling twat, but Piers Morgan is exactly like Vidkun Quisling!

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Obummer already said openly in his speech that he can't do it on his own. That it will take congress and the will of the people. This is BS.

It's BS? Why because you believed him?

Dude the ducking attorney general of the United States is the one saying this so I really don't think it's BS. It's their plan, it's been there plan since they came to power, and anyone that can't see it is blind.

It's amazing how many people refuse to admit this guy can do no wrong. They come out and openly say what their about to do and then people,still say " oh they never said that"