|
|
|
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:
NJ: The High Price Of Helping New Jersey?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In a state that’s become a poster child for “Yes, gun control does harm innocent people,” another honest, otherwise law-abiding gun owner has become ensnared in the tentacles of the Garden State’s restrictive gun-ban schemes.
Before you shrug it off and say New Jersey’s gun laws don’t affect you because you live in another state, read on.
Brian Fletcher, a 41-year-old father of two from Butner, N.C., now faces the loss of his business, the loss of his right to vote or own a gun, and up to 10 years in prison—all for traveling to New Jersey to assist with storm-related utility repairs, and for being honest with law-enforcement officers he met while there on the job. |
| Comment by:
kangpc
(7/16/2015)
|
The link is incorrect.
The correct link is:
http://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/7/16/the-high-price-of-helping-new-jersey/ |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
