|
|
|
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: California defends one-gun-a-month law at Ninth Circuit
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
U.S. Circuit Judge John B. Owens, a Barack Obama nominee, presented Yen with a scenario involving the owner of a small liquor store being threatened by a gang at both his store and his house. If the owner didn’t already own a gun and now wanted two guns, one for their home and one for their business for self-defense, under the state’s law, the owner would have to buy one and have to wait 30 days to buy the other one, which seems to prevent them from being able to defend themselves under the Second Amendment, Owens said. |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(8/16/2024)
|
| Really dumb law when applied to honest folks that already own multiple firearms . |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)] |
|
|
