|
|
|
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:
DC: Pink Pistols Win Big in D.C.
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A group called The Pink Pistols are celebrating a major victory in both the gun control as well as the gay rights arena, following a finding that portions of D.C.’s concealed carry requirements are “likely unconstitutional.”
Last week District Judge Richard J. Leon granted the preliminary injunction sought by the Pink Pistols and their co-plaintiff, D.C. resident Matthew Grace, effectively halting enforcement of the District’s “good cause” requirement to obtain a concealed carry permit. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(5/27/2016)
|
| But the reality is D.C. senior law enforcement is blatantly ignoring Judge Leon's ruling. And, more significantly, the LSM is ignoring the story. It would appear the most lawless among us are those charged with law enforcement in some of our cities. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
