|
|
|
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:
TN: Legal expert: City can ban guns at Confederate monument protest
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The city of Knoxville will ban weapons during a planned protest at the Confederate monument in Fort Sanders on 17th Street on Saturday.
But days before the protest is set to take place, many people are asking how the mayor's office can ban firearms in a state that allows permits for open carry.
"The law of the state of Tennessee is that it's okay if a city wants to ban guns in a sensitive area," said Lincoln Memorial University professor of law Stewart Harris.
While the Volunteer State issues permits for the concealed or open carry, guns and other weapons will be banned from this weekend's Confederate monument protest. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/24/2017)
|
| One might think that a law professor would be aware of the Doctrine of Prior Restraint, wherein government cannot suppress otherwise lawful behavior based upon the presumption that such exercise MAY be used to commit crimes. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
