|
|
|
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:
NJ: Weber Touts Second Amendment Rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
New Jersey’s 3rd Congressional District Independent candidate Martin Weber is vowing to preserve the spirit and legality of the Second Amendment. The seat is currently held by Democrat Andy Kim.
“The Second Amendment needs to be defended for the law-abiding citizens,” said Weber. “When you look at many gun owners here in the 3rd District, you see people who are hunters and those who use them for sport and recreation.”
The candidate does recognize the calls by advocates to ensure there are reasonable regulations and background checks. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/30/2020)
|
"to ensure there are reasonable regulations"
Hmnph. Some 2A 'advocate.'
No matter how many centuries of case law one cites, none of it erases, reverses or nullifies "shall not be infringed."
That would take a constitutional amendment, which ain't gonna happen.
I know it's politically difficult to get around that, but someone had better, because the assault on our 2A rights must be stopped, permanently. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
