|
|
|
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:
Our view: Heller ruling could be used in ‘sensitive’ locations
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Supreme Court decision which opened the door to allow almost any American to own firearms specifically stated that the Second Amendment does not prohibit laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in “sensitive” places. In the District of Columbia vs. Heller in 2008, the court ruled 5-4 that citizens have the right to possess firearms even when not in a state militia, and people can use them for lawful purposes, which include self-defense in their homes, according to Britannica.com. |
| Comment by:
hisself
(9/2/2020)
|
So, 5 unelected judges, have decided that "Shall not be infringed" actually means that my G-d-given rights can be infringed, and that the authors did not mean what was so clearly written.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
