|
|
|
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:
IL: Group Of Anti-Gun Activists Suing Suburbs Over Chicago’s Gun Violence
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"An activist Chicago Catholic priest is trying a new tactic in his quest to stamp out the Second Amendment in Illinois. Now he is suing several nearby suburbs surrounding Chicago claiming that they are aiding and abetting the sale of illegal guns in Chicago."
"Activist priest Father Michael Pfleger and a handful of co-plaintiffs are suing the suburban cities of Riverdale, Lyons, and Lincolnwood claiming that the municipalities are somehow allowing neighborhood gun shops to break laws with sales. ..."
"One of Pfleger’s claims is that the cities are allowing 'straw purchases' to be carried out at gun shops in their jurisdictions." ... |
| Comment by:
laker1
(7/20/2015)
|
| So if the burbs are flooded with guns why don't they have higher gun crime than Chicago? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
