|
|
|
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:
VA: Emergency Court Battle Erupts Over Virginia’s Sweeping Gun Ban
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Plaintiffs challenging Virginia’s ban on the sale of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and standard-capacity magazines filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction to block the Commonwealth from enforcing its unconstitutional law.
The motion and the challenge to the law, funded by NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, were filed with Virginia’s Circuit Court of Fauquier County.
Plaintiffs in the challenge, including Erick Black, Britton Condon, Clark’s Gun Shop, Optimus Arms, LLC and Hexmag USA, LLC, allege that Virginia’s law violates both the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions. |
| Comment by:
jimobxpelham
(5/29/2026)
|
| the Gov should have to pay out of pocket to defend her bogus bill |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
