|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
xqqme
(11/21/2015)
|
Norton fails, but so does Rand on this issue.
It ain't just about the local gun laws in the District of Columbia, it's about all of 'em.
The US Constitution says that Congress shall "...exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States..."
It may not be clear to Norton, but those words, if they really mean anything, mean that "local" DC laws are all, each and every one, unconstitutional ab initio, and any competent court should so rule.. |
| Comment by:
JimB
(11/23/2015)
|
| Stated like a true liberal, it is clear she has NO understanding of the CONSTITUTION. Would she be so opposed to this if a Democrat had introduced this bill? Unlikely! Someone in Congress needs to stand up for the Constitution as many have forgotten their oath of office to uphold it! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
