|
|
|
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:
MI: Court of Appeals Upholds Gun Ban at University of Michigan
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The University of Michigan’s campus gun ban has been upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals.
In a 2-1 opinion, the court said a 2001 ban making all properties owned, leased or controlled by the university weapons-free doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution.
In an opinion issued for the majority, Judge Mark Cavanagh upheld the ban and disagreed with plaintiff and Ann Arbor resident Joshua Wade, who argued it was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(6/10/2017)
|
| This political bull about which school of HIGHER learning in whichever state that allows or disallows guns on campus, is just that.. Bull!! Let the History Professor leave for another school.. Big deal. Probably overpaid anyway. Let the school lockout guns. When they have reports of murders, rapes, and robberies, then they will lose students (read lost revenue). It all works out. However, I am not saying don't stop the pressure. The constitution is ours. And the rights are ours!! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
