|
|
|
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:
IA: Gun Laws, Judicial Nominations Focus at Scott County Legislative Forum
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A legislative forum held Saturday saw the attending area legislators asked multiple times about new gun laws, especially one that would allow "strict scrutiny" in the state. The bill would amend the state's constitution to add "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of the right shall be subject to strict scrutiny." |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/25/2019)
|
"The adding of strict scrutiny makes the protection on the Second Amendment greater than the Constitution," she said, saying it would also possibly or probably eliminate background checks. "It's a bad direction to go in, [I'm] very concerned about it, and I voted against it."
Above the Constitution? REALLY? You shouldn't hold public office. Fundamental rights are ALL subject to strict scrutiny. 2A rights are no exception. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
