|
|
|
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:
Supreme Court Turns Down Assault Weapons Cases
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Fresh off the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, the Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a challenge to assault weapons bans passed in Connecticut and New York after the Newtown elementary school massacre of 2012. The challenges were denied, as expected, without comment from the court. Just last December — five days after a terrorist attack killed 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif. — the justices had refused to hear a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on such semi-automatic weapons. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/21/2016)
|
Good. Now is not the time.
The time will be after Trump fills Scalia's seat with a confederate of Thomas, and hopefully a replacement for Buzzy Ginsburg, who will certainly be retiring in the not-too-distant future. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
