![Keep and Bear Arms](/images/clear.gif)
|
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:
PA: Pa. town blocks Republican rally featuring gun-toting St. Louis couple, citing COVID restrictions
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
According to a post on the township Facebook page Friday afternoon, Palmer denied a request to hold the event at Fairview Park because it will draw more than 250 people, violating Gov. Tom Wolf’s cap on gatherings. The township also says it is unable to “allocate public resources to monitor and ensure compliance with the current public health safety mandates for the proposed event.”
The denial is “in the interests of public health safety,” the post states.
Mark and Patricia McCloskey of St. Louis were set to “do a rally event to wake up suburban voters about the Second Amendment, individual rights and defending your life and property,” Northampton County Republican Committee Chairperson Gloria Lee Snover said Wednesday. |
Comment by:
jac
(9/12/2020)
|
It would probably be allowed if it were a Biden rally.
Assuming that a Biden rally could even draw 250 people. |
|
|
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) |
|
|