|
|
|
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:
NC: Wake County Sheriff Suspends Pistol Permit Issuance
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
At a time when uncertainty about social order has prompted a large number of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment right to self-defense, the office of Wake County Sheriff Gerald Baker announced today that they will not issue new Pistol Purchase Permits until at least April 30th.
While Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) holders and those with an approved Pistol Purchase Permit can still obtain handguns, this leaves new prospective gun owners especially vulnerable. For at least the next 36 days, they cannot buy a handgun or receive one in a private transfer, even from a family member or close friend, unless they go through significantly greater time and expense to obtain a CHP. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/26/2020)
|
| So, if there is already a district precedent in federal court ruling such actions unlawful, how is this sheriff permitted to get away with it? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
