|
|
|
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:
NJ: N.J. State Police Refuse to Rule Out Door-to-Door Disarmament
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Breitbart News reports that the New Jersey State Police have “refused to rule out house-to-house enforcement of the state’s ‘high capacity’ magazine ban,” in correspondence from the Garden State’s law-enforcement agency to the news organization.
As of December 11, it is a fourth-degree felony in New Jersey to possess a “large capacity ammunition magazine,” which is defined as “a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm.” |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(12/13/2018)
|
Under federal law, 18 USC 242, it is illegal for anyone under the color of law to deprive any person of the rights, privileges or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution. Persons of little character, or honor disobey their oath. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" The Bill of Rights has become binding on state governments as well as on the federal government.
|
| Comment by:
jac
(12/13/2018)
|
| How to make otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals. Any cop or judge that enforces this ban has broken his oath to uphold the constitution. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
