|

|
|
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:
The Ninth Circuit Court’s decisions defy federal law
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A current case pending review by the Supreme Court is Peruta v. City of San Diego. In this case, the plaintiff(s) sought to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense, but the City of San Diego denied their applications for a permit, claiming they did not show “good cause” to carry. In response, the plaintiff(s) claimed the city’s definition of “good cause” violates their Second Amendment right.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the city and stated “We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/23/2017)
|
The site has a log in/join link, but the "join" option is nowhere to be found.
Two things: There is only one comma in the ratified version (read, ORIGINAL) of the Second Amendment, not three. And, neither the Constitution nor federal law "grants" rights; they are endowed by our Creator, per our founding document. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787) |
|
|