|
|
|
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:
On the No-Fly List? No Gun
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Any American denied the ability to buy a firearm would have the opportunity to have his or her case heard before a federal district judge, who would be required to reach a decision within 14 days. The burden of proof would be on the government, and plaintiffs who prevail would recover their lawyers’ fees.
The American people expect us to act.
SUSAN COLLINS
HEIDI HEITKAMP |
| Comment by:
laker1
(7/9/2016)
|
| What judge would sign off on anyone buying a firearm let alone a person on a watch list? |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/9/2016)
|
"No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law;" - Amendment V
Due process must be followed BEFORE any right can be denied, not AFTERWARD. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
