|
|
|
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:
Cory Booker's Gun Control Plan Is Ambitious, but Is It Constitutional?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Presidential candidate Cory Booker unveiled a suite of proposals on Monday aimed at tackling the growing epidemic of gun violence. The senator from New Jersey touted his reform package as “the most sweeping gun violence prevention proposal ever advanced by a presidential candidate.”
But the proposals would incur significant opposition from Republican lawmakers and organizations like the National Rifle Association, the latter of which frequently challenges gun regulations in court. According to one gun law expert, Booker's plan is likely to have mixed success complying with courts' interpretation of the Second Amendment. |
| Comment by:
jac
(5/9/2019)
|
| The constitution doesn't matter to liberal democrats. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/9/2019)
|
| Leave it to Newsweek to bollix (read, shamelessly spin) its coverage of this jerk. |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
