|
|
|
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:
Gay, trans Republicans speak at Supreme Court gun rally
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The president of the national LGBT group Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate in Delaware, and a transgender Republican activist from San Diego were among the speakers at a gun rights rally on Tuesday on the front steps of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Second Amendment Institute, which organized the event, said it was called to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the 2008 Supreme Court decision D.C. v. Heller, which held that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/29/2018)
|
"D.C. v. Heller . . . held that the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense."
I wish they would quit saying that, because it's misleading.
Heller held that the people have an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to a militia for lawful purposes, SUCH AS self defense within the home.
That holding clearly does not limit the right to the home. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
