|
|
|
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:
NY: Supreme Court firearms decision puts crime-fighting Adams under the gun
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Can’t we take comfort that only law-abiding folk will be eligible? As Justice Brett Kavanaugh reminded us, New York will still be able to rely on “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons.”
This is naïve. The Supreme Court has normalized carrying a gun. That means more people will do it.
As carrying a gun around becomes normal behavior, like carrying your phone — that’s the way it is in parts of the south and west — it will be harder to prosecute felons for carrying an illegal gun.
The law is the law, sure — but laws exist to enforce social norms. If toting a handgun to the supermarket is no longer antisocial or strange behavior, felons carrying weapons will no longer be subverting a social norm. |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(6/28/2022)
|
| Part of the problem NOW is that woke prosecutors are NOT charging and jailing "felons with guns" . Laws should be used against criminals, not used to turn the rest of us into criminals. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
