|
|
|
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:
OH: Columbus Sues Ohio for Protecting Second Amendment Rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
On 27 December, 2018, the Ohio legislature voted with more than the two thirds majority required to override Governor Kasich' veto of HB 228.
HB 228 strengthened Ohio's preemption law to prevent erosion of Second Amendment rights in Ohio. The right to own, possess, and carry weapons has been under attack by several cities in Ohio. The City of Columbus is attempting to block the new law with a lawsuit.
The City of Columbus claims that it has home rule authority to pass ordinances pertaining to the ability to own or possess firearms and firearm accessories. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(3/22/2019)
|
| They are ordinances that deprive law abiding citizens of their rights. Why should good people have their rights held hostage because of governments inept ability to control criminals? |
| Comment by:
jac
(3/22/2019)
|
Good comment Stripeseven.
Between bail, probation, and simply skipping out on trial, the odds of getting punished for serious crime has become such that the criminals have no fear of doing serious prison time. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/22/2019)
|
| I wonder if the good citizens of Columbus consider themselves well-served by their government flushing their tax dollars down the commode in pursuit of a lawsuit it cannot win. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
