|
|
|
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’s Next Gun Battle
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
An appeal filed at the court last week could change that. It asks the justices to decide the major question left open by the Heller decision: whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a gun outside the home. If the court decides to hear the case, the argument would take place in the fall — by which time, presumably, a Trump administration justice will have taken Justice Scalia’s place.
It will be late February at the earliest before the justices announce whether they will hear the case, Peruta v. California, filed on behalf of five California gun owners and a gun-rights organization by Paul D. Clement... |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/20/2017)
|
"...whether any such right exists at all."
No doubts about where the NYT stands. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
