|
|
|
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:
Federal court strikes down some D.C. gun laws as unconstitutional
Submitted by:
jac
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A federal appeals court has struck down as unconstitutional parts of Washington, D.C.'s gun laws.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 Friday that the city cannot require gun owners to re-register a gun every three years, make a gun available for inspection, or pass a test about firearms laws. The court also struck down a ban on registering more than one pistol per month.
The District of Columbia passed the laws after a landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision that struck down a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(9/19/2015)
|
| Let me get this straight. It's OK to force subjects (no point in saying 'citizens' any more) to surrender their fingerprints before being allowed to exercise a civil right but it's racist to use picture ID to keep people from voting more than once? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
