|
|
|
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:
NY: Molinaro opposes proposed gun storage law
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A proposal to adopt a gun storage law in the City of Poughkeepsie is being opposed by Dutchess County Executive Marcus Molinaro.
The Republican county executive said it is a “total infringement on the rights of law abiding citizens.”
The Poughkeepsie Common Council is considering the local law that would require gun owners to secure their weapons when not in direct possession. Molinaro called that “an unnecessary overreach” by the city. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(6/2/2015)
|
Uh, forgive me for asking this, but....
...hasn't Heller already ruled that mandated gun storage is unconstitutional?
Why, yes, it has!
So, yet again, we see localities thumbing their noses at SCOTUS precedent. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
