|
|
|
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:
NY: Failure to get pistol permit leads to charge against Rome man
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Rome Police were joined in their investigation by the Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, through the state Department of Health, officials said.
Lanigan said Cimo was in possession of three handguns and several other firearms — and that he did not have the proper pistol permit to own the handguns.
“He just didn’t get around to it,” Lanigan explained about the permit. He said Cimo knew he needed a permit for the handguns.
“He stated that he had the guns as a hobby and for self defense,” Lanigan stated, and had started collecting the weapons in 2017. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(1/18/2019)
|
| “Permits” are licenses of a right (liberty). The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled a state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. A person cannot, and should not be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.' —MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942) |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/18/2019)
|
| This would only be illegal in about six states. It is a great way to make criminals out of law abiding citizens for the sake of an agenda. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/18/2019)
|
"...the privilege freely granted by the constitution.' —MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)"
Yeah, well MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA was WRONG.
It is not a 'privilege', and it is not 'granted' by the Constitution.
Even thought the outcome was correct, it used flawed reasoning. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/18/2019)
|
| Blasphemous: "Lanigan said Cimo was in possession of three handguns and several other firearms — and that he did not have the proper pistol permit to own the handguns." |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
