|
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:
How Gorsuch’s confirmation could impact the Supreme Court
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Supreme Court could also agree to hear Peruta v. San Diego, giving Gorsuch the opportunity to weigh in on a controversial Second Amendment case that looks at whether law-abiding citizens can conceal-carry outside the home for self-defense when open carry is forbidden by state law.
San Diego resident Edward Peruta sued the county in 2009 after his application was for a concealed-carry license was denied by the sheriff's office, which is responsible for deciding whether someone has “good cause” to carry a firearm.
The case made its way to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which said in a divided opinion that there is no constitutional right to carry concealed weapons in public. |
Comment by:
dasing
(4/17/2017)
|
The 9th court is as unconstituional as it gets! |
|
|
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) |
|
|