|
|
|
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:
Ehline Law Firm PC Shows Its Support for Self Defense Rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Larger weapons such as a Howitzer Canon, or 50 caliber machine gun are typically “crew served” firearms. This means they are not bearable arms per se. So this case is very narrowly applicable to a standard infantry rifle being licensed to and used by a USMC reservist, and law abiding citizen. The time, place and manner in which the rifle can or could be used is not at issue. In fact, it can never be certain when or if a firearm may need to be used in defense of self or others. What is certain is many people wish to retain their common law and unalienable rights to keep and bear arms of their choice for a lawful purpose. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(4/23/2016)
|
| SAM rockets, bazookas, and a host of other single person controled items should , also, be avaiable!! |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
