|
|
|
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:
NY: Two St. Lawrence County Legislators Seeking ‘Test Case’ To Allow More Concealed Handguns
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Two St. Lawrence County legislators are taking steps they hope will allow St. Lawrence County residents to carry concealed handguns in public, and have been conferring with the National Rifle Association to test a new county law in court.
“We’re taking a lot of different approaches to see what the best course is, what would be the right direction to take,” said Joel LaPierre, a Republican from Fowler who represents the 4th District, and one of two sponsors of a local law that is aimed at easing restrictions placed on handgun permits by St. Lawrence County Court Judge Jerome Richards.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/12/2015)
|
"The law says 'proper cause' should mean 'any legitimate reason, a circumstance or combinations of circumstances justifying the granting of a privilege.'”
That law is unconstitutional on its face, because open carry is not unrestricted.
If unrestricted open carry is allowed, then a permit to conceal is constitutional. If unrestricted open carry is prohibited, then the concealed carry permit must be "shall issue" to be in constitutional compliance.
One way or the other, the people's right to carry for self-defense must be honored. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
