|
|
|
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:
FL: Florida gun rights group lauds latest appeals court decision as 'massive win for gun owners'
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In a case that could have far-reaching implications, a state appeals court this week ruled that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services improperly denied a concealed-weapons license for a man who said his civil rights were restored after a 1969 conviction in Illinois.
The 1st District Court of Appeal said the department, which handles licensing, should not have relied only on a check of a federal database known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, of NICS. A check of that system flagged the man’s decades-old felony conviction on a charge of stealing an eight-track tape player, leading to the department denying a license. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/18/2021)
|
| Encouraging. Amy's imprimatur has legs! (no pun) |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
