|
|
|
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:
Pricing Gun Owners Out of Their Constitutional Rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The war on the Second Amendment is becoming all about cost.
Realizing it’s far easier to make exercising one’s Second Amendment right prohibitively expensive than it is to revoke that right entirely, liberals across America are finding ways to increase the cost of gun ownership.
California is the latest state to jack up the cost of freedom beyond the reach of the average American. The California Assembly sent a bill to Gov. Jerry Brown Tuesday which would allow cities and counties to raise the cost of concealed carry permits beyond their current $100 limit. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(9/2/2016)
|
| Just another "Jim Crow' application of the law, economically denying those most in need of the relief afforded by having affordable effective self-defense ! But this is legislation with a long - and very dark - historical precedent progressives don't want uncovered ! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
