|
|
|
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:
CA: California’s Attorney General Defends Virus Shutdowns
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
What would normally be broad constitutional protections for freedoms of assembly, religion — even buying guns — may be curtailed when they endanger others during the coronavirus pandemic, California’s top law enforcement officer said in an interview. The state has been sued over all three during its shutdown as government officials pick winners and losers in deciding which businesses and activities can operate and which can’t. |
| Comment by:
hisself
(4/20/2020)
|
| Where in the Constitution does it mention "compelling government interest" or give permission to curtail rights? |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/20/2020)
|
The whole of California's state and most of its county-and-local government is packed with anti-constitutional progressives.
The entire population should ignore and disobey them, en masse. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
