|
|
|
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:
Supreme Court ducks Second Amendment — for now
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It’s not often that a nondecision is a good decision, but the Supreme Court’s ruling Monday morning that it would not decide a New York City gun case was the right call.
And, in a sense, gun control advocates dodged a legal bullet — this time. Unfortunately, the conservative members of the court signaled in dissents that they might be looking for a way to recognize a private Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in public. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/30/2020)
|
I have to laugh at the antis' insistence that Heller only established a right to keep a handgun for self-defense in the home.
They ignore two important words, "such as," in the holding. They weren't inserted to mean nothing. What they do mean is that keeping a gun in the home is but ONE lawful exercise. While that was the specific claim at issue, the sentence in no way limits the right to that one narrow instance; it allows that there are other lawful purposes.
And that reference should be at the top of our list of arguments. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
