|
|
|
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:
CA: How California Got Tough on Guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In the years since, California's progressive politicians have layered on restrictions while gun owners and manufacturers continue to try to find their way out of them.
The battle continues. New Gov. Gavin Newsom denounced "a gun lobby willing to sacrifice the lives of our children to line their pockets." A National Rifle Association spokesperson predicts the Trump-altered U.S. Supreme Court means "winter may very well be coming for gun laws in California." So while Newsom and the Democratic Legislature try to add new restrictions, gun advocates are going to court to overturn existing ones. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(2/14/2019)
|
| Oath breaking elected officials. That's how. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
