|
|
|
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:
HI: Trump Judge Tries to Strike Down State Gun Safety Law: Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Hawaii has a long history of concern about and laws to promote gun safety, going back many years before it became a state. Individuals can possess guns in their homes and places of business, but cannot carry them openly in public unless they obtain a license, for which they must demonstrate “the urgency or the need” for such open carry to help protect “life and property.” George Young applied twice for such a license but did not attempt to show such an urgency or need; instead, he relied on his “general desire to carry a firearm for self-defense.” Young’s applications were denied and he sued in federal court to have the Hawaii law invalidated as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/26/2021)
|
The "urgent need" requirement is a counterfeit fabrication created from whole cloth.
The lawful exercise of fundamental rights cannot, BY DEFINITION, depend on a particularized "urgent need."
The right to keep and bear arms is as fundamental a right as free speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to due process of law, etc. etc. etc.
The "balanceing test" argument by opponents, while appropriate for tempering other governmental restrictions, cannot be applied to constitutionally enumerated fundamental (unalienable) rights.
Period. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(3/26/2021)
|
"Gun safety law" my Dixie derrierre!!!!!!
Good grief, the euphemisms truly disgust me. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
