|
|
|
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: City of Portland Illegally Classifies Gun Shops as “Non-Essential”
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In response to COVID-19, the Portland Mayor and City Council adopted Order No. 156-19/20 on April 14th, which replaced the list of essential businesses previously authorized by the city. The order stated that "Gun shops shall not be considered an essential business or service within the City of Portland."
Not only does this order directly conflict with the new list of essential businesses published on April 3rd by the Mills administration, but it blatantly conflicts with Maine’s preemption law. |
| Comment by:
jimobxpelham
(4/18/2020)
|
| file the lawsuits against the mayor by name. he is breaking the law, make him defend his actions in court, make him pay for his lawyers out of pocket. he broke the numerous laws...make him pay...then maybe he will be reluctant to violate the law if he has to pay out of pocket. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
