|
|
|
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 Supreme Court Is Poised To Send A Major Signal On Gun Control
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The U.S. Supreme Court will examine gun rights for the first time in nearly a decade on Monday when it hears arguments in a case that could decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry a firearm in public.
In the case, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association is challenging a New York City law that severely restricted the transport of firearms outside the home.
The law has been repealed, so the high court could still dismiss the case. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/28/2019)
|
Waddaya expect from "public" media?
"The only guarantee spelled out in the Heller decision authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, however, is the right to keep a gun in the home for self-defense."
Flat-out lie. The holding says, "lawful purposes, SUCH AS
self-defense within the home." (emphasis mine)
The ruling clearly contemplates other uses that are protected, and the most logical inference is, as even Ginsberg conceded, "bearing arms" simply means "carrying arms on the person for offensive or defensive use". |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
