|
|
|
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:
MI: Nessel Takes On Fight For State And Local Gun Safety
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel joined 12 other Attorneys General Tuesday in urging the Supreme Court to uphold a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling which held that states and localities can impose certain types of firearm regulations when they are substantially related to an important government objective, such as the protection of their residents.
“I am proud to join with my colleagues to preserve the right for state and local governments to implement common-sense gun safety regulations,” said Nessel.
In 2013, the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and three individual residents of New York City filed a suit challenging the then-existing New York City regulation in the Southern District of New York (SDNY). |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/14/2019)
|
| The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The Second Amendment was incorporated in 2010 (Mcdonald v. Chicago) pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to bind the states and their subdivisions. That means states and localities must adhere to Second Amendment protections as ruled by the SCOTUS. Period. |
| Comment by:
RichardJCoon
(8/14/2019)
|
| Strict Scrutiny will dispose of this balancing of rights versus the "great good". |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
