|
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:
NJ: Pennacchio to Governor: ‘Honor U.S. Constitution and Second Amendment Rights’
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Senator Joe Pennacchio today called on Governor Murphy to respect the Constitution of the United States and classify firearms retailers as “essential” so they can reopen for business during the coronavirus emergency.
“Now is not the time to make decisions based on political ideology and violate the Second Amendment rights of citizens,” said Pennacchio (R-26). “The governor should reconsider his order closing gun shops that effectively bans the sale of guns. There is too much at stake during this pandemic to trample on the rights of people who are justifiably worried about the health and safety of their families.” |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/27/2020)
|
“Now is not the time to make decisions based on political ideology and violate the Second Amendment rights of citizens,” said Pennacchio (R-26).
Mealy-mouthed horse-doody. There IS no "time to make decisions based on political ideology and violate the Second Amendment rights of citizens."
The way he states it, he is tacitly allowing that it is a subject for future debate and reconsideration.
Like I said: mealy-mouthed |
|
|
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) |
|
|