|
|
|
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:
Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation Could Be a Huge Setback for Gun Safety Laws
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In June, when the Supreme Court decided that it wasn’t going to take up any firearm-related cases in its next term, gun control groups were surprised and relieved. The nation’s highest court had nearly a dozen of gun cases up for potential consideration and a ruling on any one of them could have had a significant impact on the gun safety laws passed in numerous states since District of Columbia v. Heller 12 years ago, which overturned DC’s longtime ban on gun ownership and affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm for the purpose of self-defense. |
| Comment by:
jac
(10/9/2020)
|
These laws have nothing to do with safety. They are all about depriving citizens of their second amendment rights.
If anything, they make people less safe by denying them the means of self protection against attackers.
Criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. Despite what the gun grabbers would have you believe, they don't acquire firearms at gun shows. They steal them, acquire them through straw purchase or buy them on the black market. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(10/9/2020)
|
"Gun safety laws." *Puke!!!!!*
Need I say more???? |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/9/2020)
|
Fellas, it's Mother Jones.
Waddaya expect? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
