|
|
|
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:
NY: Guns don’t down power lines. Woodchuck hunters do
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
But I’m willing to allow the possession of such high-capacity, rapid-shooting weapons, or — if public opinion is strongly against them — their prohibition. I don’t see it as a Second Amendment issue; rather, it’s more a societal concern to be decided by public opinion.
Background checks of people who want to buy weapons seem reasonable. I had to apply for a New York state license to have my Ruger pistol. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/24/2021)
|
"But I’m willing to allow the possession of such high-capacity, rapid-shooting weapons, or — if public opinion is strongly against them — their prohibition. I don’t see it as a Second Amendment issue; rather, it’s more a societal concern to be decided by public opinion."
Mr. Heitmann seems a decent fellow, but that statement shows a complete lack of civic understanding. It is precisely a 2A issue, i.e. the 2A exists to guarantee the right to keep and bear ordinary military-style weapons, exclusively. (U.S. v. Miller, 1939) And as D.C. v. Heller points out, fundamental rights cannot be subjected to any interest-balancing approach. Certain policy choices are "off the table" and are insulated from "public opinion." |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
