|
|
|
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:
GA: Professors Take Georgia’s Campus-Carry Law to Court
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Six Georgia professors filed suit in state court Monday to stop a law that allows licensed concealed carriers to bring guns onto campus.
The complaint, brought against Governor Nathan Deal and Attorney General Chris Carr, argues that the state’s guns-on-campus law infringes on the University System of Georgia’s authority over its 30 schools.
In July, Georgia became the 12th state to allow concealed guns on college campuses. Governor Deal signed the campus-carry bill a year after issuing an emphatic veto that invoked the Founding Fathers’ aversion to weaponry in institutions of higher learning, language that the plaintiffs reference in their suit. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(9/28/2017)
|
| It would be fun to get the students together and sue the professors. Should create some tense moments in class. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
