|
|
|
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:
Trans Rights Weren’t the Only Target of North Carolina’s ‘Bathroom Bill’
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The law further enables outside parties to bring lawsuits against local officials in a personal capacity if their city does not abide by the state’s mandates. It also empowers the Florida governor to play king, and remove any official believed to be willfully violating the law’s intent.
Gillum, whose city has long-standing regulations on the books that prohibit people from shooting guns in public parks, soon experienced preemption’s punishment. In 2014, the Second Amendment Foundation and Florida Carry sued the mayor because, Tallahassee had not officially rescinded its gunfire ordinances, despite their being effectively null and void. Gillum has been tied up in legal proceedings ever since. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/2/2017)
|
"progressive city residents"
There's yer problem, RIGHT THERE.
"queer people"
Let a conservative use that term, and watch the fireworks.
Double-standard. But, WHO CARES?
QUEER-QUEER-QUEER-QUEER-QUEER!!!
THERE! I SAID it! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
