data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fdd48/fdd487ee41c9eeffc3a8053b937721c590360eee" alt="Keep and Bear Arms"
|
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: GOA, GOF, and CNJFO Challenge New Jersey’s Unconstitutional Hollow Point Ammo Ban
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, alongside plaintiff Heidi Bergmann-Schoch, have filed a lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s unconstitutional ban on possessing hollow point ammunition for self-defense outside the home. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, argues that the state’s restrictions violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by preventing law-abiding citizens from possessing and carrying the most effective forms of self-defense ammunition. |
|
|
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) |
|
|