|
|
|
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:
xqqme
(11/21/2015)
|
Norton fails, but so does Rand on this issue.
It ain't just about the local gun laws in the District of Columbia, it's about all of 'em.
The US Constitution says that Congress shall "...exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States..."
It may not be clear to Norton, but those words, if they really mean anything, mean that "local" DC laws are all, each and every one, unconstitutional ab initio, and any competent court should so rule.. |
| Comment by:
JimB
(11/23/2015)
|
| Stated like a true liberal, it is clear she has NO understanding of the CONSTITUTION. Would she be so opposed to this if a Democrat had introduced this bill? Unlikely! Someone in Congress needs to stand up for the Constitution as many have forgotten their oath of office to uphold 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) |
|
|
