|
|
|
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: Ninth Circuit Overturns ruling on Second Amendment Waiting Periods
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
On 14 December, 2016, a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court ruling in Silvester v. Harris. In the original decision, the District Court ruled that requiring a gun owner who had already passed a background check, and who either already owned a registered gun or had a concealed carry permit, to wait an additional period to receive another firearm, was an infringement on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Ninth Circuit held that a 10 day waiting period was a “reasonable safety precaution”. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(12/16/2016)
|
| Or an 'unreasonable' death sentence for women getting out of violent relationships. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
