|
|
|
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:
dasing
(5/10/2017)
|
| Note: former judge, he belives anyone in front of a judge is guilty, hands down!!! |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/10/2017)
|
More Chicken Little nonsense.
The very idea that "clear and convincing evidence" should not be necessary to bind a person over for trial is inherently elitist and tyrannical.
I doper commits felony armed robbery and shoots someone. The facts on the ground are that he WAS involved, in flagrante delicto. He claims SYG immunity, saying he was 'defending' himself.
Do you mean to tell me that any judge, under the 'revised' SYG law, would GRANT such a dirtball immunity from prosecution?
Pu-LEEZE. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
