Lying is what they do

This is more confirmation of what we already knew. They have to lie to get traction. From the DNC email leak (email from Brina Milikowsky, Chief Strategy Officer, Everytown for Gun Safety to Shannon Watts, forwarded to grambuilder@yahoo.com):

Donald Trump has made a lot of promises, but most voters haven’t heard this one yet: He has publicly vowed that on day one of a Donald Trump presidency, he will force every elementary and high school in America to allow guns… [1]

1. “Donald Trump: ‘I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools’,” Jenna Johnson. The Washington Post, January 8 2016.

Getting rid of the Federal law mandating “gun free zones” around schools cannot be construed as forcing “every elementary and high school in America to allow guns”. Have they ever heard of the difference between state law and Federal law?

10 thoughts on “Lying is what they do

  1. Currently dealing with the Massachusetts AG who is currently saying that law means what SHE says, not what the LAW says….they don’t give a shit.

    They constantly pick winners and losers, and law should only be followed to punish “bad” people, and not to hinder “Good” people.

    So I should likely go to prison for expressly following Massachusetts law….but I’m a gun owner, so I’m bad.

    Martha Stewart went to prison for perjury because she is a bad 1%er.

    Meanwhile Hillary’s actions which are 10x worse, should be ignored because she’s “Good”.

    They truly are anarchists.

  2. “Have they ever heard of the difference between state law and Federal law?” Well, as Democrats, no, they haven’t. Federalism is something they don’t approve of.
    Then again, don’t forget the 14th amendment, which was adopted precisely to protect human rights against infringement by states. And at the time of its adoption, the 2nd amendment was specifically mentioned as one that needed such protection. (Even though the wording of the 2nd amendment, unlike, say, the 1st, does not limit it just to the Federal government, and this point was recognized by some courts well before the 14th amendment made it explicit.)

  3. Gun free zones are statutorily enacted. Whether Trump wants it or not, he must get Congress to pass a bill repealing the GFZ statute. No President can unilaterally repeal a law. (I know our present leader has de facto done it by refusing to enforce certain laws, but that’s not the same as repealing them.) Unless and until the statute is repealed, no President can “force” any person or entity to violate the law.

    • …or convince the courts to hold those laws unconstitutional, as they plainly are.

    • You beat me to it. The federal “Gun-Free School Zones Act” was passed by Congress and signed by the then-President. Repealing it will take another Act of Congress.

      No President, be it Obama, Hillary, or Trump, can summarily negate a legislatively-enacted statute. There is no clause in the Constitution to allow for a “retroactive veto”.

      This is one reason I’m having a hard time supporting Trump, even with his pro-2A platitudes. He’s not intending to follow the Constitution; he’s indicated he means to bypass Congress and rule by executive order at least as much as Obama did/does.

      • There are two Constitutional ways for this to happen without the cooperation of Congress.
        1. Court action, as I mentioned.
        2. (credit to Zelman and Smith) by presidential pardon of anyone convicted under such laws.

    • And here I thought the President took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Enforcing _unconstitutional_ laws would seem to be a violation of that oath and stating that he would _not_ enforce an unconstitutional law would seem to be upholding that oath.
      Previous Congresses, Courts, _and_ Presidents have all violated their oaths — often with regard to the same subject and within the same election cycle. Bad conduct on the part of others in the past is not a justification for bad conduct on the part _any_ person today.

      • I think Bob hit it on the head here with regard to Archer’s concern. There is legal precedent where courts have negated convictions for individuals disobeying Unconstitutional laws (though not unconstitutional judicial orders–they don’t like being second guessed themselves), and thus indicated that one does not have to comply with an Unconstitutional law even if it has not been struck down by the court yet. Of course, practically, you’re taking a gamble that the court will decide properly and that the cops won’t shoot you.

        I don’t see a reason that similar logic could not be applied to a President or other executive refusing to enforce an unconstitutional law or regulation–in fact, this is what groups like Oath Keepers encourage.

        This is a dangerous thing for a president to do because of the precedent it sets–we’ve seen the danger as someone like Obama points to it and says it applies to a law that he doesn’t like even though he doesn’t claim that said law is unconstitutional. However, the danger of unconstitutional abuse doesn’t mean we should oppose proper exercise of this prerogative.

        I can’t stand Trump because I don’t trust him to do this right and I think that at best he’ll pile up worse precedents for the next president to further abuse, but if he does get elected and does declare that he won’t enforce this law, then it’s up to us to do our best to hold his feet to the fire and ensure that he does it in the proper way.

  4. Pingback: SayUncle » The leaked DNC emails and guns

Comments are closed.