|
|
|
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:
TX: CJ Grisham's seized weapons returned
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The weapons seized more than four years ago from Temple resident C.J. Grisham after his arrest by the Temple Police Department were finally returned to him Friday.
A video by Grisham’s son of the arrest went viral in the case that gained national attention and sparked the founding by Grisham of Open Carry Texas, a gun rights activist group.
The guns and ammunition were picked up at the Bell County Sheriff’s Department, which was one of the entities contacted in December 2013 that claimed it didn’t have the guns. |
| Comment by:
jac
(7/6/2017)
|
It's criminal what this man was put through for breaking absolutely no laws.
What's even worse is that the damn cop that caused the incident got away with it. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
