|
|
|
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:
IN: Attorney General Hill Asks Supreme Court to Review Right to Carry Case
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill, along with attorneys general and governors from 22 other states, is asking the US Supreme Court to hear a case surrounding the rights of individuals to carry firearms outside their homes. The states are asking the court to review a lower court ruling in Rogers v. Grewal. The lower court upheld a New Jersey law which restricts a person’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, unless the person can demonstrate a ‘justifiable need’ to do so.
|
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(1/29/2019)
|
| These States seem to think it's "Okee-Doekee" to disregard the constitution, and assume powers that has not been granted to them in order to deprive lawful citizens of their rights. You can't help but wonder where these assumptions have came from. It somehow has a criminal feel to it. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
