|
|
|
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:
Another Major Shooting Unfolds as Justices Weigh Latest Firearms Case
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A year after the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, at an Orlando nightclub, another major shooting—Wednesday’s gunfire that injured a member of Congress—unfolded as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to consider the latest challenge to gun regulations.
The justices on Thursday are scheduled to review the case Peruta v. California, a challenge to restrictions in California against carrying concealed firearms in public. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in June 2016 said there is no Second Amendment protection to such carrying of a gun. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/15/2017)
|
"[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table." - Dicta, D.C. v. Heller (2008)
This is not a political question, whereby the Court could punt it back to the state legislatures. It is a CONSTITUTIONAL question that demands resolution.
This is not a time for the Court to go wobbly. It must face the issue head-on. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
