|
|
|
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:
Filibuster Preservation Bought Two Years For The Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The decision by Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin to keep the legislative filibuster has given Second Amendment supporters something they desperately needed: Time. The next two years will be critical, both to shift the Senate landscape and to also regain the House.
Sinema and Manchin are not the most reliable of champions. In 2018, we noted that Martha McSally was a better choice as compared to the former. The latter could have been replaced by West Virginia Attorney General Pat Morrissey. Those two races, and the failure to beat Jon Tester loom large now. Had we won, it would mean control the Senate stayed in GOP hands, and it would have been a massive check on the Biden-Harris regime. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/29/2021)
|
"But by keeping the filibuster, it means the Supreme Court keeps its sure 5-4 majority on Second Amendment cases."
Not true. The filibuster has already been eliminated for judicial confirmations, up to and including for the SCOTUS.
What is being temporarily preserved is the LEGISLATIVE filibuster, which can stifle attempts to pass anti-Second Amendment legislation. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
