|
|
|
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:
CA: Awesome: California Now Has A 'Second Amendment Sanctuary City'
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The small town of Needles, California, which sits right along the California-Arizona border, declared itself a Second Amendment Sanctuary City earlier this month. The city's officials wanted to show their support for gun rights and obtain an exemption from state gun control laws.
According to officials, California's anti-gun laws are severely hurting the small border town. Arizona gun owners have decided to boycott California over the Golden State's gun control laws, which is hitting Needles very hard. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/27/2019)
|
| The exemption idea is a major-league fail. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law. Non-exempt towns and cities would have a winning cause of action. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
