|
|
|
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:
IL: Illinois’ gun and magazine ban in federal court Wednesday
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
This week, Gov. J.B. Pritzker said there are limits to the Second Amendment. Next week, he will be defending that position in federal court. A fellow defendant in the case says the state’s gun and magazine ban should be overturned.
On Wednesday, Pritzker said his gun and magazine ban is meant to curb gun violence.
“There is a Second Amendment to the Constitution, but there are limits to what that means,” Pritzker said at an unrelated event in Champaign. “One thing it doesn’t mean is that everybody in every circumstance should be able to get a hold of every gun.” |
| Comment by:
jimobxpelham
(4/8/2023)
|
its about criminal control, put them in jail for life if they use guns for crimes. its not the guns.
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
