|
|
|
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:
Justices Hear Arguments in 2A Challenge of NYC Gun Control Law
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In a case being closely watched by advocates on both sides of the gun issue, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday heard arguments challenging a New York City law that was actually changed earlier this year in an effort to derail the case, a move one national gun rights organization publicly derided.
“The only reason that change was made is because the Court accepted the case for review earlier this year, and everybody knows it,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/3/2019)
|
Even if the contested provisions in that law have been recinded, there is still a major issue before the Court. Both the federal circuit court and the district court of appeals upheld its constitutionality, blatantly ignoring Heller and McDonald, and the textual and historic analysis test used by the Court in both cases to weigh any injuries to the right, which is FUNDAMENTAL..
That is a situation that demands remedial action at the highest level, something that would have long-term ramifications. Lower courts simply cannot be permitted to ignore SCOTUS precedents. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
