|
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: Gun ruling may have little impact
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Monday's decision by the Supreme Court that says Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense won't have a major impact on Shasta County, experts on both sides of the debate said."
"But north state gun rights advocates think the 5-4 ruling could encourage litigation to challenge California's gun laws such as the assault weapons ban."
"'I think today this hasn't changed anything,' said Redding Mayor Patrick Jones, who manages his family's gun business, Jones' Fort on E. Cypress Avenue. 'We are not going to see any laws in California overturned today. This may open the door to be able to litigate for somebody that says, 'I want this type of gun, and I have the right to keep and bear arms.'" ... |
No
Comments found for this Newslink
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|