|
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:
CA: New law exempts retired reserve officers from California magazine ban
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Brandon Combs with the Firearms Policy Coalition told Guns.com that AB 1192 gives “extra-special gun rights” to a select few while stepping on law-abiding gun owners who are denied possession of similar magazines for self-defense. “The fact that the bill was brought by a Republican and passed by anti-gun Democrats says everything one needs to know about how deep the Sacramento swamp really goes,” said Combs.
Further, Combs has concerns that the carve-out fails to pass constitutional muster, holding that it likely violates equal protection rights under both the state and federal constitutions as well as making potentially illegal changes to Prop. 63 gun control laws approved by voters in 2016. |
Comment by:
jac
(7/13/2018)
|
All men are equal. Only some are more equal then others. |
|
|
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) |
|
|