|
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:
NY: City's Denial of Gun Dealer's Concealed Carry Bid Upheld
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The New York City Police Department did not violate the constitutional rights of a traveling firearms dealer by denying his application to carry a concealed firearm, a Manhattan judge has ruled.
According to state Supreme Court Justice Michael Stallman's May 14 decision in Matter of Knight v. Bratton, 101556/14, plaintiff Cavalier Knight requested a license to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense and to protect his wares from theft.
Knight is a sales associate with the California-based Armored Mobility Inc. and sells law-enforcement related equipment, products that Knight argues are in demand by criminals and terrorists, thus creating danger for him while he is traveling and conducting business.
|
Comment by:
Millwright66
(5/21/2015)
|
SOP for the 'progressive brigade'. Shutting the door before the horses have bolted isn't in their playbook. Nor is 'after', it seems.
Or, bluntly put, the elitists don't give a damn about the blood cost of their prerogatives; so long as one of theirs isn't paying the price. |
|
|
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) |
|
|