|
|
|
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: California appeals ruling to overturn longstanding assault weapons ban
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The state has formally appealed a court ruling last Friday that overturned California’s longstanding ban on assault weapons, marking the next step of a legal battle that could eventually reach the Supreme Court.
Speaking from a news conference at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center alongside the governor and mayor, Attorney General Rob Bonta referenced last month’s mass shooting at a San Jose VTA yard that left nine dead as evidence that “no one law” can stop mass shootings — but pledged to fight the controversial ruling nonetheless. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/11/2021)
|
That law is doomed, and they know it.
That's why they are scrambling around like ants in a kicked-over anthill. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
