|
|
|
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:
The Supreme Court seems poised to give Second Amendment activists a huge gift
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
“Everybody got a pistol. Everybody got a .45. And the philosophy seems to be — at least as near as I can see — ‘When the other folks give up theirs, I’ll give up mine.’”
That’s a line from the Gil Scott-Heron song, “Gun,” a 1981 critique of gun violence in America. Unfortunately, a majority of Supreme Court justices don't seem to have taken it to heart. On Wednesday, the court sounded likely to strike down a New York law that prohibits individuals from carrying concealed handguns in public if they don’t have “proper cause” to carry. |
| Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(11/5/2021)
|
What's REALLY going on:
The deep state couldn't stop this type of ruling anymore if it made it to the high court, which they stopped for about a century. This is the easiest ruling in the history of the court. Watch the two lesbian communists and breyer find a convoluted way of dissenting though. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
