|
|
|
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: NRA Seeks to Derail Jacksonville
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A Jacksonville lawmaker, who two years ago received a perfect rating from the National Rifle Association, is now a target of the
Second Amendment group as he seeks to become a circuit judge. In a letter Saturday to NRA and Unified Sportsmen of Florida members, influential gun-rights lobbyist Marion Hammer deemed House Judiciary Chairman Charles McBurney "unfit" for a judgeship as she implored members to email Gov. Rick Scott to keep the Republican lawmaker "off the bench." |
| Comment by:
mickey
(5/24/2016)
|
http://www.theledger.com/article/20160523/NEWS/160529786/1374?Title=NRA-seeks-to-derail-Rep-Charles-McBurney-s-judicial-bid
The gist of it: McBurney is a ex-prosecutor who thinks prosecutors deserve to get convictions when they go to court, and as such he doesn't want the burden of proof placed on prosecutors in SYG cases. Not what I usually look for in a judge. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
