|
|
|
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:
PHORTO
(5/29/2019)
|
So, this 'compromise' moves a constitutionally critical decision from ex parte hearings to a group of medical bureaucrats, with the "Oh, well, he can appeal it within 14 days." BS still in place?
Why do these cretins insist on ignoring our sole (and unanswerable) objection, that due process requires an adversarial hearing BEFORE rights can be suspended?
All they need to do to get unanimous support is to satisfy that constitutional requirement, and it's 'problem solved'.
So, why don't they?
Inquiring minds want to know. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787) |
|
|
