|
|
|
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:
PA: Gun owner's case against Stroud Township remanded back to trial court
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania remanded a case back to trial court involving a Stroud Township gun owner who challenged the constitutionality of not being allowed to discharge firearms on his property due to a local ordinance.
The appellate court ruled Nov. 17 that the trial court failed to conduct any constitutional analysis of plaintiff Jonathan Barris’ claim “that the ordinance, which restricts his ability to practice firing his firearms on his property ... unconstitutionally infringes on his rights under both the Second Amendment and Article I, Section 21 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania either facially or as applied.” |
| Comment by:
mickey
(12/2/2017)
|
| In other words, "You idiot, you forgot to make up an excuse to explain why you ignored the Constitutions in your ruling. Go back and rewrite your decision, and make it at least 10% plausible" |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
