|
|
|
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:
The Right’s Latest Tactic on Gun Laws? Just Don’t Enforce Them
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In early 2018, while survivors of the deadly Parkland school shooting in Florida were leading a renewed push for gun control across the country, a counter-movement was brewing in Illinois. Officials in rural Effingham County, a few hours downstate from Chicago, were looking to protest a spate of proposed firearm restrictions being considered by state lawmakers, and came up with a provocative resolution: The county declared itself a “Second Amendment Sanctuary” and threatened not to enforce new laws it viewed as a violation of Americans’ gun rights. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/29/2019)
|
| If the left will not enforce immigration laws they ought not whine like stuck little piggies when the right treats gun laws the same. |
| Comment by:
jac
(5/29/2019)
|
The reason for not enforcing them is because they are in violation of the second amendment.
Just because some liberal court decides in favor of these laws does not make them legal.y |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
