|
|
|
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:
RI: Court ruling clears Rhode Island to ban high-capacity magazines
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Possession of high-capacity firearm magazines will be a felony in Rhode Island beginning this Sunday, following a federal judge’s ruling upholding the new law.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge John J. McConnell Jr. rejected a request by several firearms owners to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the law from going into effect.
In the ruling, McConnell said the plaintiffs, which included a Rhode Island hunting and fishing supply store and several gun owners, had not proven they would "suffer irreparable harm" from the new law, and said enforcing the restrictions was "in the public's interest." |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(12/16/2022)
|
| I hope anyone who is injured due to limited rounds posts a thankyou to the politicians who authored and voted for this law |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
