|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
ME: Rockland Tenants Want Second Amendment Rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A tenant living in government-subsidized housing in Rockland is in the middle of a lawsuit with his landlord over his Second Amendment rights.
He and his neighbors say they have the right to own a gun, but building owners say otherwise.
The Park Place Apartments in Rockland have been the center of controversy over the last year.
After Harvey Lembo, a wheelchair-bound tenant, shot an intruder last summer he was told to give up his gun; that it was against apartment policy.
But since that night, neighbors say they’d feel safer with a weapon.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/22/2016)
|
More cluelessness.
One's landlord, neighbors or community members have no right to deny, diminish or restrict others' exercise of fundamental unalienable rights.
That's what fundamental rights are - unalienable.
And that is what distinguishes them from privileges, which may be granted, withheld or withdrawn. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] |
|
|
