
|
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
(4/3/2020)
|
It is maddening the way these judges slice and dice and parse and whittle.
The question isn't how MUCH a law burdens a constitutionally protected right, but whether it burdens it AT ALL.
Constitutional protection doesn't amount to squat if legislators divine how much protection the government will allow, and courts collaborate in that subjugation of ironclad proscriptions.
Once and for all, there is no such thing as a "living constitution." The very concept is a diametric contradiction to the core of U.S. founding principles. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/3/2020)
|
P.S. - So, NYA. |
|
|
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) |
|
|