The actions the president would take if he acts with executive authority against assault weapons (2nd amendment arms) Are unconstitutional and demonstrative of why he should be removed from office since his agenda is not constitutional.The immigration debate should have been a clear crossing of the line the in the sand that constitutional authority gave the president who sent his (our) justice department agaiinst American citizens on behalf of foreign citizens and lawbreakers.The SCOTUS decision went like this. AZ not only has the right but a duty and must check the status of those it lawfully detains so it can deal in a legal way according to the status according with standing laws .But the that since we share a long border with multiple states the fed is responsible for haveing a uniform way to deal with immigration law THAT DID NOT SAY THE FED HAD RIGHTS TO IGNOR THE FEDERAL LAW’ If it were asked to clarify the decision at the federal level it would use the same language as AZ law that is the not only have the right but a duty and must check so they can follow the laws as they stand at the time. They cant follow the constitution because they harbor intentions that are against it.
This 2nd amendment issue is a more widely known battle that more of us should recognize as Unconstitutional.If an executive order against 2nd amendment arms is imposed I would hope that processes would be put in place to remove the president for failing to uphold the contitution and rule of law by Congress. IF CONGRESS WONT DO IT THEN SCOTUS SHOULD. If that last line fail then we should all realize we have no protections gauranteed by our incapable leaders who act and rule lawlessly ignoring it when it affects them and using it as a weapon to enforce or not depending on whos boots you lick or how you vote as is evident with the immigration bill.