|
|
|
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:
NH: Rubens rips Ayotte for 'No Fly List' gun amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Republican U.S. Senate challenger Jim Rubens says Kelly Ayotte's sponsorship of an amendment preventing persons on the federal government's "No Fly List" from purchasing firearms would result in a gross violation of constitutional due process.
He maintains that the result of such legislation would be to deny many innocent Americans of their fundamental constitutional rights.
Rubens, who faces an uphill battle in his primary challenge to the first term incumbent Ayotte, was in Laconia Friday morning for an interview on WEMJ Radio and then was questioned at length by The Citizen. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/25/2016)
|
Rubens is exactly right.
Due process is blatantly violated by this amendment, in two critical ways:
1) It allows the removal of rights BEFORE an evidentiary hearing, and in doing so
2) It stands the presumption of innocence on its head.
This practice of lawmakers knowingly passing unconstitutional laws and forcing those injured by those laws to seek relief in court has to STOP.
And only WE can make it stop, by sending a clear message with our votes.
Vote for Ruben. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
