|
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:
MI: Michigan Secretary of State Benson can’t write state gun laws
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Michigan’s top elected officials have serious problems staying in their lanes.
The state Supreme Court had to rebuke Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for setting aside the Legislature to take unilateral control of the state during the COVID-19 emergency.
And now Secretary of State Benson is way overstretching her constitutional authority to rewrite the state’s firearms laws.
The secretary issued an order Friday banning the open carry of pistols and rifles near polling places.
Michigan has very specific laws detailing where firearms can and can’t be carried. There are very few restrictions on where a gun can be openly carried.
But the Constitution does not give her the power to write and impose new laws. That’s the Legislature’s role. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/27/2020)
|
Amazing. A 'mainstream' local/regional paper not exactly friendly to carrying in public actually 'gets it.' |
Comment by:
mickey
(10/27/2020)
|
The courts agree, Benson is not a monarch.
The Attorney General disagrees, and vows to tie it up in appeals until after the election.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Judge-hears-challenge-to-Election-Day-ban-on-15679022.php |
|
|
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) |
|
|