|
|
|
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:
After 15 Years, Still More Work To Do
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
We still had two states that didn’t allow for any carrying of firearms, and in only one state could a legal gun owner carry without a license. Now every state has, in theory at least, a way for individuals to carry a firearm for self-defense, though eight states still restrict that right by demanding “good cause” be shown before a permit is issued. Sixteen states, on the other hand, now recognize your right to carry without a government permission slip. And later this year, for the first time in a decade, the Supreme Court will hear another Second Amendment case, this time challenging a New York City gun law. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(4/25/2019)
|
| Yes, it would probably be a great idea to take a look at elected servants who have taken the oath of office and lied about it, only to display a tyrannical way of thinking. Since no one has been held criminally responsible for their actions, there's only one way to correct such disloyalty to the American people..Vote them all out..all of them |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
