|
|
|
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:
Big Law Firms Target Your Second Amendment Rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
We have been celebrating what the election of Donald Trump means for the Second Amendment for about a month now. Well, folks, the gun-grabbers have regrouped, and have come up with a new way to go after our Second Amendment rights.
The New York Times was fawning over these announcements, many from high-powered law firms who charge $1,000 an hour for their services. The Brady Center is happy, with Avery Gardner, their top lawyer telling the Times, “With this new coalition, our bench just got deeper.” Also joining this anti-Second Amendment crusade is the Brennan Center for Justice out of New York University. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(12/10/2016)
|
| Just more businesses to avoid ! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
