|
|
|
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:
OH: Cleveland Loses Firearm Preemption Case, Leaves Taxpayers to Foot the Bill
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Ohio refused to hear an appeal by the City of Cleveland to an intermediate appellate court ruling that invalidated several of Cleveland’s gun control ordinances under the Ohio firearm preemption statute. The decision brings to an end a long-running dispute over the validity of the ordinances and represents a major win for the Buckeye State’s gun owners. What’s unlikely to end, unfortunately, is the political grandstanding by Cleveland’s antigun politicians, with Mayor Frank Jackson having previously indicated that “corrective language” for the ordinances has already been proposed to the city council. The case is Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. City of Cleveland. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(2/5/2018)
|
| Whatever the gov. does, no matter how illegal, the taxpayers ALWAYS foot the bill!!!!! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
