|
|
|
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:
NC: Why Durham County will pay this anti-white-supremacist protester $3,000
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Durham County has agreed to pay anti-white-supremacy activist Dwayne Dixon $3,000 to settle claims that Sheriff Mike Andrews violated his constitutional rights of free expression, free association and the bearing of arms.
In May, Dixon filed a lawsuit asking Andrews to pay $25,000 for improperly revoking Dixon’s concealed carry handgun permit issued a year prior.
Under an agreement that is being finalized, the county will pay Dixon $3,000, County Attorney Lowell Siler confirmed. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(11/22/2018)
|
| Where is the rest of the article that tells us that elected officials were arrested for knowingly attempting to violate someone's rights? Under federal law, 18 USC 242, it is illegal for anyone under the color of law to knowingly deprive any person of their rights. Then, in 18 USC 241, it is illegal to conspire to violate such rights. It is a felony with a prison term attached. So who arrests them when they break the law? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
