|
|
|
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:
ME: Bill would lift ban on firearms in public housing
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Maine lawmakers will consider a bill that would lift the ban on owning firearms in public housing.
The issue came to light back in September when a tenant in a section 8 apartment in Rockland shot an intruder. Harvey Lembo's home had been broken into several times before he bought a gun to protect himself. he was then informed by the management company guns are banned and if he didn't get rid of it he'd have to leave.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/5/2016)
|
"All three bills passed easily, but not without questions about whether they improved the public safety and the definition of 'well-regulated militia'."
The "well-regulated militia" misconception needs to be addressed clearly, so that everyone understands it.
The right is enumerated for that reason, but that reason isn't a prerequisite for the right. The militia exists because of the right, the right doesn't exist because of the militia.
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose'. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." - U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875) |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/5/2016)
|
| (Sorry. That post was for a different story.) |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
