TexasCHLforum.com

Hopefully soon we get the text of the new executive orders on gun-control.

I assume the NRA lawyers are fully-briefed and ready to file suit to seek a restraining order blocking the new orders.

Do not forget that those executive orders, whatever their text, are subject to the "rule of law."

dlh

Regarding the title: Those are two things that don't go together.

VMI77 wrote:Regarding the title: Those are two things that don't go together.

The only time "Obama" and "Rule of Law" belong in the same sentence is when they are in one pointing out that they do not belong in the same sentence.

dlh wrote:Hopefully soon we get the text of the new executive orders on gun-control.

I assume the NRA lawyers are fully-briefed and ready to file suit to seek a restraining order blocking the new orders.

Do not forget that those executive orders, whatever their text, are subject to the "rule of law."

dlh

I'll defer to someone who is actually an attorney, but it is my understanding that no law suit can be filed until the Executive Action has resulted in adverse circumstances/ charges against an individual.

Maybe a writ of mandamus? I am not a lawyer, but they have their ways. This fight against the socialist agenda is not over yet.

steveincowtown wrote:

dlh wrote:Hopefully soon we get the text of the new executive orders on gun-control.

I assume the NRA lawyers are fully-briefed and ready to file suit to seek a restraining order blocking the new orders.

Do not forget that those executive orders, whatever their text, are subject to the "rule of law."

dlh

I'll defer to someone who is actually an attorney, but it is my understanding that no law suit can be filed until the Executive Action has resulted in adverse circumstances/ charges against an individual.

It's my understanding that the law suits would be against the "act of passing" the executive orders rather than the orders themselves.