|
|
|
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:
Insurrection in WA State: Lawmen ‘Just Say No’
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
What Second Amendment advocates considered an “extremist” gun control measure when they opposed it, I-1639 — passed by slightly less than 60 percent of voters, in only 12 of the state’s 39 counties — is being challenged in federal district court by the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment Foundation.
But top law enforcers — sheriffs in many of the state’s counties — are “just saying ‘no’” to enforcing provisions of the measure, at least until the court challenge plays out, the newspaper said. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(1/31/2019)
|
| Sheriffs are just honoring the Oath they took, and apparently won't support unconstitutional activities. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
