Imagine being the proprietor of an abundance of riches. The buyable world is at your disposal. One day, you decide to hire a servant for your mansion. Trust is established between you and your servant, but then the horrible happens. The servant ambushes you from the inside of your own mansion. He manages to handcuff you; ties you up, and then places you in a cage. You then ask, what is going on? The servant proceeds to list out a number of crimes he says that you’ve committed. The truth is that you have not committed any one of the crimes. Arguments ensue, regarding evidence and ethics. The servant very simply disagrees with you, and keeps you there. What is wrong with this picture? One of the things that has happened, is that the servant has violated the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence means that one is innocent until proven guilty. Barack Obama has engaged in such a violation regarding the new gun laws.
We refer back to the analogy. Barack Obama is our public servant. We the people, his master. What Obama has done with the new gun laws, is ascribe guilt to gun owners who have done nothing wrong, but who have only not met certain qualifications (the link below). From a philosophy or law perspective, Obama has espoused what in legalese is called mens rea. A term that means guilt of intent. Following the new gun laws, Obama believes that there is a guilt of intent by certain people without the need for qualification. In other words, he has assigned guilt to certain people, who are, put metaphorically, just sitting there with a gun and doing nothing wrong. Obama has violated the presumption of innocence of his master (the people); and the United States constitution, and accuse that master of a crime for possessing a firearm, without that person having used it to violate others. Such is not the behavior of a public servant, but an act of red-betrayal.