|
|
|
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:
Guns to Marriage to the Environment: What a New Supreme Court Could Mean to Calif.
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Imagine civilians legally packing pistols as they stroll the streets of San Francisco and Los Angeles. Or health care that is harder for Californians to obtain or even afford. Or air in the Central Valley with higher concentrations of methane gas, or county jails across the state that have no recourse but to allow federal agents inside for an immigration search. None of these changes is guaranteed. But they’re all potential effects of a rightward shift in the U.S. Supreme Court, with the addition of President Trump’s newest nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge in Washington, D.C. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/16/2018)
|
| Awwwww....poor wittle Commiefornya might have to rejoin the United States of America. Boooo hooo, boo hoo..... |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
