|
|
|
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:
NY: State Senate Dems say Cuomo's deal delaying gun control database is unconstitutional
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"State Senate Democrats may head to court to block Gov. Cuomo's deal with Senate Republicans that halts implementation of a database intended to provide background checks of people who buy ammunition."
"Queens Sen. Michael Gianaris, deputy leader of the Senate’s Democratic Conference, said the agreement — made public late Friday afternoon — is unconstitutional because it negates a key provision of the SAFE Act, the governor’s much-heralded 2013 gun control law."
"'It is completely outrageous and not legally correct,' Gianaris said."
"Mayor de Blasio also raised questions about the agreement, suggesting it was a step backward." ... |
| Comment by:
AFRet
(7/14/2015)
|
So, let me get this straight, when Obama refuses to enforce laws, like our immigration laws, it's OK.
But, when laws are not enforced that you liberals love and want, it's now wrong.
Got it!
Unbunch your panties and grow the F**k up, A-holes. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
