|
|
|
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:
Licenses to exercise constitutional rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A commenter on a recent thread suggested that, if the government can require licenses or permits to possess a gun — even licenses that are available to all people who have Second Amendment rights — then the government would have a similar power as to other rights, such as the right to speak. Another commenter suggested that the difference in treatment between guns and speech stems simply from an unprincipled gun exception from “ordinary constitutional law.” (I use the term “licenses” and “permits” interchangeably here.)
|
| Comment by:
neilevan
(5/16/2015)
|
“The Constitution of these United States is the
supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to
the Constitution is null and void of law.” (Marbury vs.
Madison, 5 US 137)
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no
rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it
creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as
inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
(Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425)
“No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege,
license it, and attach a fee to it.” (Murdock vs.
Pennsylvania, 319 US 105)
“If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the
citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
(Shuttlesworth vs. Birmingham, Ala., 373 US 262) |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
