|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(2/26/2021)
|
| This is really dangerous because the 9th circus could do ANYTHING. Two previous pro gun rulings in this case (one by the district judge and one by the 3 judge appellate panel) have now been set aside. We start all over now and I'm concerned the deep state, which controls the federal judiciary, will uphold commiefornia's totally unconstitutional "law." But in that scenario, since an adverse ruling from the full appellate court would conflict with two previous rulings, we would have a chance of getting to scotus, but scotus has been ignoring good 2nd amendment cases by the dozen. So who knows. Our rights should NOT be in this precarious of a position. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
