|
|
|
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:
WA: NRA sues to stop I-1639's gun-control provisions
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The NRA and the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation sued in U.S. District Court in Seattle on Thursday, saying the measure violates the right to bear arms and strays into the regulation of interstate commerce, which is the province of the federal government.
"We are disappointed that too many voters were fooled into supporting this 30-page gun control scheme, despite overwhelming law enforcement opposition," Second Amendment Foundation Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said in a written statement. "This measure will have a chilling effect on the exercise of the constitutional rights of honest citizens while having no impact on criminals, and we will not let it go unchallenged." |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/16/2018)
|
Nowhere in the suit do I see the fact that the storage requirement is settled law. D.C. v. Heller struck down D.C.'s storage requirement because it "...makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”
Any storage requirement that mandates having guns locked up and inaccessible is therefore likewise unconstitutional.
So, why aren't Gottlieb and the NRA even mentioning that? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
