|
|
|
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:
NH: 2A win handed down in New Hampshire carry rights case
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The New Hampshire Supreme Court last week unanimously agreed with a gun rights advocate that recent rule changes affecting nonresident concealed carry permit holders went too far.
Scott Bach is the executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, and, due to restrictive may-issue practices in his home state, from 2004 to 2013, held a New Hampshire nonresident license to carry a concealed handgun. The reason Bach could no longer renew his permit in New Hampshire was that the state Department of Safety changed the rules for non-residents to require that applicants first have a valid carry permit in their home state. |
| Comment by:
-none-
(6/9/2016)
|
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=69a_1464652396
Fitzroy Crossing Police seize and destroy beer found in designated dry communities.
Alcohol is the largest single contributing factor to anti-social behaviour and other crimes in the area.
Under the Liquor Control Act, police have powers to destroy the seized alcohol – with crushing the most common and most efficient method of destroying large quantities.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
