EJFudd
NES Member
Correct and correct. As you say, she warned the world on Day 1 that her unilateral decree was an "evolving paradigm" subject to change whenever she felt like it or found another amateurish mistake in what she wrote. Let's be honest here: She didn't know what the Hell she was writing. She knew her goal for sure (ban those evil black guns she blames for hurting her people in Orlando) but she is essentially clueless about firearms and making up firearms law.I have a hard time believing that when this goes to court they would use the argument that she changed her mind therefore her rules shouldn't be allowed. That would imply agreement that she actually had the authority to do what she did. That would be a mistake. She already said on day one that her rules were subject to change, and that's exactly what she's been doing. Its a no win argument. I think they would want to attack her perceived "authority" to do what she did, and how that action introduced new requirements which changed the written law.
Bottom line: She is just doing what she told us she was going to do. She is making changes whenever she feels like it.
The authority to make-up new law is her real Achilles heel. These daily changes are just the icing on the cake.