|
|
|
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:
CA: California streets are safe now: Gun-like smartphone cases banned
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
West Coast lawmakers have left no stone unturned in their crusade to protect the public from scary gun-like objects as a new law banning the sale or manufacture of phone cases resembling guns was signed Friday.
California Assembly Assistant Majority Leader Jim Cooper, a Sacramento Democrat, introduced the measure in February to change state law to consider a cell phone case that is similar in color and appearance to a gun, to be classified as an imitation firearm, then ban the manufacture or sale of such covers. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(8/28/2016)
|
| California is so safe with those 10's of 1,000's of felons + safe havens for illegals, that are residing there. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
