|
|
|
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:
CT: Sandy Hook becomes focus in Governor Race
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constituionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School has become an emotional issue in the final days of Connecticut’s close race for governor. Democrats gathered at the state Capitol Monday to warn that electing Republican Bob Stefanowski could risk the wide-ranging gun control measures passed by the General Assembly following the deadly Newtown mass shooting. They also claim electing someone backed by the NRA as Connecticut’s next governor would send the wrong message to the nation and destroy momentum for federal gun safety legislation. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/31/2018)
|
“Bob believes we need to strike the appropriate balance between protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners and efforts to keep guns out of the hands of people that should not have them.”
Fundamental rights are NOT subject to "interest-balancing", Bob.
"We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government ... the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. . . The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people[.]" - D.C. v. Heller (2008)
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
