|
|
|
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:
KY: Legal experts weigh in on legality of proposed Marshall County Second Amendment ordinance
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Marshall County Fiscal Court is looking over a proposed ordinance that could face legal trouble. The proposed Second Amendment sanctuary ordinance restricts the county from using resources to enforce state or federal laws the ordinance deems unlawful. The fiscal court says the unlawful acts listed in the ordinance would infringe on citizens' constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
At the first reading, Tuesday, the county attorney said the fiscal court's ordinance was not legal. Gun Owners of America provided the model for the Marshall County Second Amendment ordinance. |
| Comment by:
jac
(12/19/2019)
|
| The comments on this site were much more interesting before one had to have a membership to comment. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
