|
|
|
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:
Cody Wilson's Lawyers Explain Why State Department Should Stop Violating His Rights Right Now
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Today I obtained a further filing in the suit, a "Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction." Below, a summation of the interesting arguments in it.
It begins by pointing out that the ITAR regulations scope and vagueness leaves many citizens, in addition to apparently the State Department itself, in the dark as to whether a given action or product violates ITAR by being "exported" and the "commodity jurisdiction" requests that citizens must go through to find out if they are subject to it are not treated in any efficient or swift manner.
|
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(5/12/2015)
|
| It would seem the Obama Administration's bogus claim of 'the most transparent' should be relabeled. Given the President's most recent public remarks regarding news agencies he perceives critical of his actions and his articulated 'solution', I propose we henceforth call it the "Prior Restraint Administration". |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
