|
|
|
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:
CA: Gun rights groups promise to sue over ammo regulation ballot measure
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Listed on the ballot as Proposition 63, voters approved the initiative 63-37 on Tuesday. Funded by $5.2 million from the state’s Democratic Party and wealthy donors, the measure not only further protects new gun control bills signed earlier this year but also requires background checks prior to all ammunition sales – a first for any state.
Attorney Chuck Michel, who also serves as president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, advised that with a new Republican president choosing potential U.S. Supreme Court Justices, the time is right to take not only Prop. 63 but also other legally questionable laws to court. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(11/11/2016)
|
| That's right, Cali thought it could legislate by having it's ridiculous 2nd A laws enshrined by the 9th circus and then some black robed supremes. Looks like they gambled on Hillary and lost. Perhaps all the nation can now see CA not as a leader, but as the serfdom that it is. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
