|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
jimobxpelham
(9/10/2019)
|
| stupid is as stupid does, vote them out |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/10/2019)
|
Ready my lips: There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to regulate private sales of firearms, or of anything else. Its authority extends only to commerce. Private sales are not commerce, and there is no other provision empowering the federal government to regulate them.
The Dayton mayor would be better advised to rub elbows with the state legislators. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that impinges on the state's powers in that regard. If the state constitution will allow it, then they can do it - IF they have the votes.
It ain't rocket science. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
