|
|
|
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: New Jersey Considers WWII Carbine an 'Assault Weapon'
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Danny Burt is caught in the bureaucratic morass known as New Jersey Gun laws. In 2013, someone filed a temporary restraining order against him, which, according to New Jersey law, meant the state had to temporarily confiscate the 21 guns he owned. Among his collection was an M1 Carbine, the kind that hundreds of thousands of American GI’s carried across the mud of Europe and dragged through the sands of the Pacific as they fought the Axis powers during World War II. Burt’s was a family heirloom, given to him legally in 2006 by his grandfather, who had carried the rifle through the war. |
| Comment by:
laker1
(9/25/2015)
|
| Crispy Cream should be in New Jersey pardoning people caught in is stringent gun laws. Instead he is running around the country trying to bring its guns laws to the whole country as President. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
