[DieHard the Hunter]

> In the first year I intend to work with congress on a national no carry law...

That kinda runs afoul of the “...and bear arms” part of the Second Amendment, doesn’t it? How does he propose to achieve this without such legislation being deemed unconstitutional?

Your constitution is not there merely for decoration. One day, eventually, somebody somewhere in the US is going to need to have the courage to defend the Constitution if it is to remain relevant. It ought to be as easy as asking Obama for his birth certificate please. But it may become as difficult as insisting that the Second Amendment isn’t merely a suggestion, but rather a Force of Nature.

[Vaduz]

I bet obama won’t let his kids play cowboy’s and people of color.

[albie]

“That kinda runs afoul of the “...and bear arms” part of the Second Amendment, doesn’t it? How does he propose to achieve this without such legislation being deemed unconstitutional”?

...we have to remember that bobama believes that the Constitution is a “living and breathing document”. To a Marxist, that means “arbitrary and lawless activism”. (page 37, “Liberty and Tyranny” by Mark Levin) Great book btw!

[Erik Latranyi]

That kinda runs afoul of the “...and bear arms” part of the Second Amendment, doesn’t it? How does he propose to achieve this without such legislation being deemed unconstitutional?

Obama won't try. The risk is that the SCOTUS declares such a law unconstitutional AND declares carry permits are the equivalent of driver's licences....meaning your carry permit would be automatically accepted by any state just as your driver's license is accepted by any state.

Obama's legal team will see this as too risky with the current court makeup.

[weaponeer]

> In the first year I intend to work with congress on a national no carry law..."

That kinda runs afoul of the “...and bear arms” part of the Second Amendment, doesn’t it? How does he propose to achieve this without such legislation being deemed unconstitutional?

Probably the same way they did the National Firearms Act of '34, the Gun Control Act of '68, and the Assault Weapons ban of '94. All survived constitutional challenges. It's even worse now.

[paratrooper82]

“That kinda runs afoul of the “...and bear arms” part of the Second Amendment, doesn’t it? How does he propose to achieve this without such legislation being deemed unconstitutional?”

Just like the progressive liberal socialist did in 1994 when they enacted the “assault weapons ban” and not a single American challenged the Constitutionality of the law!

Keep your powder dry!

[fella]

That kinda runs afoul of the “...and bear arms” part of the Second Amendment, doesn’t it? How does he propose to achieve this without such legislation being deemed unconstitutional?

That's easy. All he needs to do is follow FDR's lead and pack the court. Check and mate, dictator for life Poppa Hussain-O.