![Keep and Bear Arms](/images/clear.gif)
|
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:
CNMI: CNMI officials oppose repeal of handgun law
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
This comes as David and Li-Rong Radich seek a summary judgment in a lawsuit against the Department of Public Safety, claiming it denied their second amendment rights to own handguns.
The office of the Attorney General says a favourable ruling by the court would not redress the plaintiffs' alleged injuries.
It also argues the second amendment cannot be interpreted in a manner which is contrary to the intent of the framers of the Covenant.
It added that handguns are not constitutionally protected in the CNMI because handguns have never been used by the law-abiding citizens of the territory for the purpose of self-defense. |
Comment by:
teebonicus
(2/13/2015)
|
"It also argues the second amendment cannot be interpreted in a manner which is contrary to the intent of the framers of the Covenant."
See: Article IV, Section 1. pp2 - "supreme Law of the Land"
"It added that handguns are not constitutionally protected in the CNMI because handguns have never been used by the law-abiding citizens of the territory for the purpose of self-defense."
This argument should get laughed out of court. So, according to this, a fundamental right of every human being doesn't exist because they have historically been denied the ability to exercise it?
Please.
Red Queen, call your office....
|
|
|
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) |
|
|