|
|
|
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:
CA: No, Judge Benitez, we do not need weapons of war for ‘home defense’
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A FEDERAL judge’s decision overturning California’s longtime ban on assault weapons has been rightly mocked for its ludicrous likening of an AR-15 rifle to a Swiss Army knife. But the ruling is no laughing matter. While it will be appealed — and hopefully overturned by jurists who understand the Second Amendment is not without limits — the ruling is part of a sustained attack on gun safety laws that has been emboldened by the shift in balance of the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California on Friday termed the state’s ban on assault weapons, implemented in 1989 and revised over the years, “a failed experiment” and ruled it unconstitutional. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/9/2021)
|
* SIGH *
More of this "weapons of war" cr@p.
The "Heller vs. D. C." SCOTUS decision stated that modern arms ARE protected by the second amendment. Let's hope the high courts that will hear the appeal know this.
Do the myrmidons who write this mush realize that just about every type of firearm ever made has either been a "weapon of war" or is still a "weapon of war." |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/9/2021)
|
WaPo pay wall.
Nope. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
