|
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:
VA: Suit Seeks Right for Young Adults to Buy Handguns
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Charlottesville wants to make it legal for people between 18 and 21 to buy handguns and ammunition from federal firearms licensed dealers, claiming the restriction violates the Second and Fifth amendments. The suit was filed on behalf of 20-year-old University of Virginia student Tanner Hirschfeld and 18-year-old Albemarle County resident Natalia Marshall. Both tried to purchase handguns from Charlottesville-area handgun dealers and were denied the purchase because of their ages. |
Comment by:
Stripeseven
(10/30/2018)
|
Give'em an inch, they'll take a mile.The People of America have never authorized anyone to destroy their Bill of Rights, The Peoples' Rights. Persons of little character, or honor continually seek to undermine our Constitutional form of government. Citizens must demand that all public officials be bound by the chains of the Constitution. |
|
|
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) |
|
|