|
|
|
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 |
| To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege. [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] |
|
|
