|
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:
CNMI: CNMI officials oppose repeal of handgun law
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
This comes as David and Li-Rong Radich seek a summary judgment in a lawsuit against the Department of Public Safety, claiming it denied their second amendment rights to own handguns.
The office of the Attorney General says a favourable ruling by the court would not redress the plaintiffs' alleged injuries.
It also argues the second amendment cannot be interpreted in a manner which is contrary to the intent of the framers of the Covenant.
It added that handguns are not constitutionally protected in the CNMI because handguns have never been used by the law-abiding citizens of the territory for the purpose of self-defense. |
Comment by:
teebonicus
(2/13/2015)
|
"It also argues the second amendment cannot be interpreted in a manner which is contrary to the intent of the framers of the Covenant."
See: Article IV, Section 1. pp2 - "supreme Law of the Land"
"It added that handguns are not constitutionally protected in the CNMI because handguns have never been used by the law-abiding citizens of the territory for the purpose of self-defense."
This argument should get laughed out of court. So, according to this, a fundamental right of every human being doesn't exist because they have historically been denied the ability to exercise it?
Please.
Red Queen, call your office....
|
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
"Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|