|
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 |
No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|