|
|
|
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:
PA: NRA lawsuit against City of Lancaster enabled by bad lawmaking in Harrisburg
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Pennsylvania Act 192 went into effect Jan. 5. It enables anyone or any organization “adversely affected” by a local gun ordinance to sue the municipality; legal standing is afforded even if the plaintiff doesn’t reside in the municipality. The National Rifle Association, a gun rights group based in Virginia, is suing Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and the City of Lancaster — Lancaster over its 2009 ordinance that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen guns to the police. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(1/19/2015)
|
Nothing like a simplistic argument fueled by complex motives ! One might opine dragging out the 'NRA straw man' never seems to grow old with hoplophobes. Anti-gun types see creating a "patchwork quilt" of conflicting gun laws serves their prohibition cause.
PA gun owners, (supported by the NRA, among others) only want consistent gun law throughout the state. This current anti-gun mania harkens back to PA's "speed trap" era where municipalities prey upon transient motorists. Law-abiding gun owners want uniform gun laws they can comply with in the ordinary course of their affairs without being made prey to criminals. Criminals, of course, don't give a da*n about any municipality's gun laws; or any others, FTM. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
