|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/14/2019)
|
"But courts haven’t ruled on which weapons those are."
A blatant lie, and Winkler is wrong.
How convenient to ignore U.S. v. Miller (1939) which did exactly that. In common use; military utility; could contribute to the common defense - the Court was explicit in what qualified arms for protection, by ruling that Miller's sawed-off shotgun didn't fit that description.
The liars can't have it both ways. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| As an individual, I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms. However, as a judge, I know full well that the question of whether handguns can be sold is a political one, not an issue of products liability law, and that this is a matter for the legislatures, not the courts. The unconventional theories advanced in this case (and others) are totally without merit, a misuse of products liability laws. — Judge Buchmeyer, Patterson v. Gesellschaft, 1206 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985) |
|
|
