|
|
|
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:
NRA-ILA Files Friend of the Court Brief in Key Concealed Carry Case
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Today, NRA-ILA filed an amicus curiae (or friend of the court) brief in a case pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concerning how the police may respond when presented with a concealed carry permit.
This case began when a Connecticut police officer approached a man who pulled over to fix his phone’s GPS. Upon being stopped, the man presented the officer with his driver’s license and state-issued license to carry a firearm. At the same time, he informed the officer that he had a lawfully carried pistol in the driver’s side door of his car.
|
| Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(3/16/2022)
|
This is how DANGEROUS it is to deal with police. They see everyone as a target. Merely being by the side of the road and they target you. Say nothing to them but "AM I BEING DETAINED?"
We lost most of our privacy and liberties when effectively the whole nation bought the big lie that you need these commercial plates merely to travel, and a commercial license merely to travel. Take these away and cops become a lot less dangerous and threatening. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
