|
|
|
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:
NJ: Court Says 2nd Amendment Doesn’t Trump State's Strict Gun Laws
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A Bergen County man has lost his bid to fight the confiscation of his guns and ammunition following a domestic violence arrest and charges that he had high-capacity magazines and hollow-point ammunition. An appellate decision on Tuesday upheld a Superior Court judge’s earlier ruling that Arthur Vinogradsky was no longer qualified to be a gun owner even though the charges against him were eventually dropped. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(5/25/2016)
|
Malfeasance.
Heller clearly established that bearing arms is a fundamental right, and that while some restrictions are permissible they cannot materially deny the right.
Whether or not one agrees with that holding, it IS precedent and is binding on lower courts. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/25/2016)
|
And all this time I thought that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
Ooooooooooooooooooops. (/sarcasm) |
| Comment by:
stevelync
(5/26/2016)
|
| And there are fools who thought that kristy Kreeme the supreme overlord of NJ, would make a good POTUS. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
