|
|
|
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:
Ehline Law Firm PC Shows Its Support for Self Defense Rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Larger weapons such as a Howitzer Canon, or 50 caliber machine gun are typically “crew served” firearms. This means they are not bearable arms per se. So this case is very narrowly applicable to a standard infantry rifle being licensed to and used by a USMC reservist, and law abiding citizen. The time, place and manner in which the rifle can or could be used is not at issue. In fact, it can never be certain when or if a firearm may need to be used in defense of self or others. What is certain is many people wish to retain their common law and unalienable rights to keep and bear arms of their choice for a lawful purpose. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(4/23/2016)
|
| SAM rockets, bazookas, and a host of other single person controled items should , also, be avaiable!! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
