|
|
|
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:
Why New Zealand's new gun controls would be unconstitutional in America
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
As my colleague Anna Giaritelli notes, gun control activists are calling for U.S. adoption of New Zealand's new gun regulations, as ordered by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern following last week's terrorist attack.
One problem: these calls reflect either a basic lack of understanding on U.S. constitutional law, or a failure to actually read the New Zealand regulations.
I have read those regulations, and I am convinced that Ardern's new regulations would be patently unconstitutional were any federal, state, or local government to enact them in America. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(3/22/2019)
|
| You can bet that government there will not give up any of its guns. Any of them..... |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/22/2019)
|
| Translation: YOU. CAN'T. DO. THAT. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
