|
|
|
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:
NJ: Concealed Carry A State Decision
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Representative Tom MacArthur is a co-sponsor of HR38 which is an effort by the Federal Government to make concealed carry of guns legal in all fifty states. I write in opposition to this bill because as a citizen of New Jersey I feel that this should be a states right issue to decide. We are a small, demographically overpopulated corridor state. If a person wishes to carry a gun into New Jersey they can apply and be granted a document giving them this right by the State of New Jersey.
|
| Comment by:
hisself
(1/3/2018)
|
Idiot!
You said: "We are a small, demographically overpopulated corridor state. If a person wishes to carry a gun into New Jersey they can apply and be granted a document giving them this right by the State of New Jersey."
I already have that right - God granted it, and the 2nd Amendment guaranteed my right to bear arms!
Driving is a privilege, not a right, so I will modify your statements to show the absurdity of your comments:
"We are a small, demographically overpopulated corridor state. If a person wishes to drive a car into New Jersey they can apply and be granted a document giving them this right by the State of New Jersey."
Want to do that?
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
