The lawyer who brought the first legal challenge to the brand-new gun limits announced by President Obama last month now is asking a judge for a quick ruling, insisting there’s really nothing to argue over.

The new motion for summary judgment was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Palm Beach Division, by civil rights activist attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch.

His recent lawsuit reasoned that there is “nothing in the U.S. Constitution which offers any authority or role of the executive branch with regard to legislating to change the rights under the Second Amendment.”

Now he’s arguing that the new gun rules, additional background check requirements, changed dealer licensing requirements and a move to abrogate privacy laws to require doctors to report on patient’s “mental health” issues did not follow the Constitution and the Administrative Procedures Act.

Besides, he argues, the executive branch admitted it was making the changes “purely because [Obama] does not like the legislative decisions of Congress.”

However, the motion argues, decisions “abridging the fundamental rights of the plaintiff and other U.S. citizens under the Second Amendment” are plainly unconstitutional.

“These actions are unconstitutional abuses of the president’s and the executive branch’s role in our nation’s constitutional architecture and exceed the powers of the president as set for in the U.S. Constitution,” he said.


“Defendants openly and voluntarily admit to having changed the law regulating the purchase and sale, transfer, gift, or conveyance, of firearms, and the licensing requirements for those designated as ‘dealers,’” he explains.

That leaves Americans, “including plaintiff,” subject to “potential criminal prosecution … for conduct that was legal prior to Jan. 4, 2016.”


For example, the Obama administration warned that even individuals who sell a single firearm may, under the new interpretation, be considered a dealer and be required to obtain a federal firearms dealer’s license or be criminally prosecuted.


And, he says, doctors are being encouraged to violate their patients’ privacy and “report their patients who exhibit any poorly defined mental health ‘issues.’”


“Defendants are clearly legislating, by their own admission, which violates the U.S. Constitution,” Klayman argues.


The lawsuit names as defendants Obama, AFT Deputy Director Thomas Brandon and Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Klayman’s case alleged: “Defendants Barack Obama and Thomas Brandon have announced and initiated actions under the purported inherent authority of the president of the United States to rewrite statutes enacted by Congress by executive order or executive action. The president states that he is doing so purely because he does not like the legislative decisions of Congress.”


Klayman contends that even if the White House wanted to impose new rules, Obama’s pronouncements this month violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

“The president cannot simply announce sweeping new rules and implement them by giving a speech or issuing an executive memorandum.”


Source: Bob Unruh,