|
|
|
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: Bronx Man, Battling Own Legal Woes, Brings Gun Rights Case to U.S. Supreme Court
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Two weeks before Efrain Alvarez and his attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their challenge to a New York City regulation that limited where licensed handgun owners could transport their weapons, police officers showed up at his Bronx apartment and took away all his firearms.
The officers walked past the bullet-making equipment in his cluttered entranceway and past the trophy deer head hanging on his living room wall. From two imposing steel vaults in the back bedroom, they confiscated around 45 firearms, including five handguns. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/28/2019)
|
What a hypocrite. He believes in gun control, but had 45 firearms and shot competatively? He worries about "the wrong guy" getting hold of a firearm, after filing a perjured report about a mythical 'stolen' .38?
...and he doesn't think that he himself is "the wrong guy"?
I hope his cert case is successful, but I wish a pox on him personally. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
