|
|
|
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:
Freddie Gray’s Second Amendment rights were violated — where is the NRA?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Mosby also announced that in fact, the weapon police found on Gray was not illegal after all. He was in possession of a knife that was not only legal under Maryland law, but its blade was tucked in a safe position and was inside his pocket.
Freddie Gray, it turns out, was legally bearing arms, as the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees.
His arrest, and his death, appear to be a violation of a number of his civil rights, and those rights include his Second Amendment rights to carry a weapon. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(5/2/2015)
|
There is a slight complication to this interpretation. Given Mr. Gray's long police record is possible he could be a "prohibited person". And, as we have seen recently, MD doesn't pay all that much attention to any of our constitutional amendments or precepts.
Given the "political circus" atmosphere of Mr. Gray's case following his apprehension I suspect "Truth" - and soon Justice are the real victims. Gray, a known dealer, was detained after being observed to be engaged in a possible street deal on Sunday morning in Baltimore's "drug mall". Beyond that, we know little. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
