|
|
|
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:
Our view: Heller ruling could be used in ‘sensitive’ locations
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Supreme Court decision which opened the door to allow almost any American to own firearms specifically stated that the Second Amendment does not prohibit laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in “sensitive” places. In the District of Columbia vs. Heller in 2008, the court ruled 5-4 that citizens have the right to possess firearms even when not in a state militia, and people can use them for lawful purposes, which include self-defense in their homes, according to Britannica.com. |
| Comment by:
hisself
(9/2/2020)
|
So, 5 unelected judges, have decided that "Shall not be infringed" actually means that my G-d-given rights can be infringed, and that the authors did not mean what was so clearly written.
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
