|
|
|
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:
WA: Lacey Rejects Business Owner’s Request to Sell Guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In a case that has spurred a town-wide debate on the second amendment, the owner of an ammunition store in Lacey Township will not be permitted to sell firearms, the township’s Zoning Board of Adjustment has ruled.
William Malcolm, a retired captain of the Union County Sheriff’s Office, owns Jersey Sportsman on Route 9. He qualifies for a federal permit to sell firearms in his shop, however he cannot receive the permit until the municipal government confirmed zoning approval. The township’s zoning officer decided that gun sales were not a permitted use in the C-150 commercial zone, forcing Malcolm to seek a variance from the board. |
| Comment by:
kangpc
(8/12/2016)
|
| This article is from NEW JERSEY, not Washington. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
