|
|
|
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:
Are Stun Guns, Well, Guns Protected By The Second Amendment?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Supreme Court agreed with her. It smacked down the Massachusetts decision. Specifically, the Supreme Court set aside the state court ruling and sent the case back to the Massachusetts court “for further proceedings not inconsistent with [its] opinion.”
Now, if you’re wondering how the eight justices currently on the Supreme Court voted, we’ll never know. It was an unsigned opinion without full written or oral arguments. The Court did, however, refer to its landmark 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, as it ruled that the Second Amendment applies “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” even those not in existence at the time of the founding. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(4/7/2016)
|
Dear NRA: The Second Amendment to the Constitution does not protect guns, in fact neither of the words "gun" nor "guns" can be found anywhere in the text of the Constitution.
The 2A protects our right to keep and bear arms, not guns. In a military sense, that includes all the 'terrible implements' of a soldier. As Judge Alito has written, it also includes weapons not designed for military use. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
