|
|
|
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:
FL: Federal appeals court hears arguments on Florida ban on gun sales to those under 21
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The National Rifle Association is urging a federal appeals court to strike down a Florida law that bans people under the age of 21 from buying guns. A lower court upheld the measure, which state lawmakers passed in the wake of the Parkland shooting.
During a hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Miami on Thursday, an attorney for the NRA argued the law violates Second Amendment and equal protection rights.
“The right in Florida has been turned into a privilege for a few and that is not a right at all,” NRA attorney John Sweeney said. |
| Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(3/28/2022)
|
| Look how damn LONG this is taking. Justice delayed is justice denied. And still no guarantee of a correct ruling. Our corrupt federal courts can read the 2nd amendment, so they delay cases for years. SCOTUS then ignores cases. Dangerous stuff. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
