|
|
|
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:
SAF Funds Challenge To New Jersey Carry Law
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"The Second Amendment Foundation confirmed today that it is financially backing the legal challenge to New Jersey carry laws by Israel Albert Almeida, the Andover man who is battling to obtain a concealed carry permit for personal protection."
"Almeida, who is represented by New Jersey attorney Evan Nappen, operates a property management business that involves rent collections in high crime areas. He has been threatened numerous times, yet the Andover Township police chief turned down his permit application. When he took the issue to court, the court denied his application on the grounds that Almeida 'failed to demonstrate a substantial threat.' The case is in the state Superior Court’s Appellate Division." ... |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(2/24/2015)
|
FINALLY!
Get Gura on the case, and let's get this ball rolling. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
