|
|
|
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:
California Gun Owners Short Opportunity to Buy Magazines Hailed as “Freedom Week”
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The span from March 29 to April 5 is being called “Freedom Week” because it was a time period when California gun owners were allowed to buy previously prohibited magazines. A federal judge's ruling March 29 in an NRA-supported challenge to California’s magazine banlifted the floodgates for people who had been unable to make such purchases in 20 years. Suddenly Californians no longer had restrictions over the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, receipt, and possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(4/16/2019)
|
| People who think that they have more power than the Constitution gives them, hate to give up that crown. SERVE NOT RULE. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
