|
|
|
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
(4/3/2020)
|
It is maddening the way these judges slice and dice and parse and whittle.
The question isn't how MUCH a law burdens a constitutionally protected right, but whether it burdens it AT ALL.
Constitutional protection doesn't amount to squat if legislators divine how much protection the government will allow, and courts collaborate in that subjugation of ironclad proscriptions.
Once and for all, there is no such thing as a "living constitution." The very concept is a diametric contradiction to the core of U.S. founding principles. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/3/2020)
|
| P.S. - So, NYA. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| As an individual, I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms. However, as a judge, I know full well that the question of whether handguns can be sold is a political one, not an issue of products liability law, and that this is a matter for the legislatures, not the courts. The unconventional theories advanced in this case (and others) are totally without merit, a misuse of products liability laws. — Judge Buchmeyer, Patterson v. Gesellschaft, 1206 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985) |
|
|
