
|
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:
CA: Federal court rules there is no Constitutional right to sell guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The U.S. 9th Circuit on Tuesday upheld an Alameda County law barring gun stores within 500 feet of residential properties in a blow to gun rights advocates.
The ruling came from a 9-2 en banc panel of the court in a case brought by gun dealers and Second Amendment groups who contended the county’s zoning effectively put it off limits to new gun stores. The court held that local governments could regulate the sale of firearms so long as would-be buyers were still able to purchase them somewhere in the area and that the Second Amendment does not protect the ability to engage in gun sales. |
Comment by:
dasing
(10/12/2017)
|
The constitutional right to arms include the sale of arms, though not worded in 2A !! |
Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(10/12/2017)
|
OK, does that mean we get free guns, or that we have to steal them? /:wiseacre:/ |
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|