|
|
|
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: Gun rights groups promise to sue over ammo regulation ballot measure
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Listed on the ballot as Proposition 63, voters approved the initiative 63-37 on Tuesday. Funded by $5.2 million from the state’s Democratic Party and wealthy donors, the measure not only further protects new gun control bills signed earlier this year but also requires background checks prior to all ammunition sales – a first for any state.
Attorney Chuck Michel, who also serves as president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, advised that with a new Republican president choosing potential U.S. Supreme Court Justices, the time is right to take not only Prop. 63 but also other legally questionable laws to court. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(11/11/2016)
|
| That's right, Cali thought it could legislate by having it's ridiculous 2nd A laws enshrined by the 9th circus and then some black robed supremes. Looks like they gambled on Hillary and lost. Perhaps all the nation can now see CA not as a leader, but as the serfdom that it is. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| As an individual, I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms. However, as a judge, I know full well that the question of whether handguns can be sold is a political one, not an issue of products liability law, and that this is a matter for the legislatures, not the courts. The unconventional theories advanced in this case (and others) are totally without merit, a misuse of products liability laws. — Judge Buchmeyer, Patterson v. Gesellschaft, 1206 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985) |
|
|
