|
|
|
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:
NJ: Second Amendment group backs Andover Twp. man’s bid to carry gun
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"The [SAF] recently announced it was financially backing a township man in his fight against the state's 'justifiable need' law to carry a handgun."
"'That's actually very important because financially it will allow the case to go all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court if it is allowed to get that far,' said Israel Albert Almeida ..."
"Almeida said the foundation is fully financing his efforts."
"'This is part of our ongoing effort to have New Jersey carry laws declared unconstitutional,' said Alan Gottlieb, [SAF] founder ... 'We were drawn to Almeida's case because it provides one more example of how the Garden State's concealed carry law is simply Draconian in the way it is administered.'" ... |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(3/2/2015)
|
| its long been an axiom in "criminal-friendly" NJ permitting the arming of "high-value/profile" potential victims would impede a number of inimical economic processes. Criminals would lack funds to pay their lawyers, prosecutors and other NJS employees reliant upon its high crime rates would become superfluous and, finally, law-abiding citizens might come to feel so empowered as to start questioning some of NJ's more otre' political processes. That would never do. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
