|
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:
WV: Morrisey, other AGs ask U.S. Supreme Court to protect Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey recently joined a coalition of 18 states urging the U.S. Supreme Court to consider a case with implications for the Second Amendment.
The coalition’s recent filing raises the argument that governments at all levels have enacted laws eroding the Second Amendment rights of citizens, and without guidance from a higher court, appeals courts have allowed such laws to stand.
The case challenges the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting firearms dealers from selling handguns to out-of-state consumers. A U.S. District Court ruled such a ban was unconstitutional, but the decision was later overturned by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/11/2019)
|
The SCOTUS has got to start ruling on these cases. This issue has to be settled once and for all. |
|
|
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) |
|
|