|
|
|
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:
The Supreme Court Finally Takes Up a Second Amendment Case
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
New York City has a law banning the transportation of licensed handguns out of the city, which isn�t the minor issue it may seem at first glance. When the Supreme Court agreed to take it up in late January, it broke a decade-long silence on the Second Amendment�no cases on the scope of the right since District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) declared an individual right to keep and bear arms. That means this odd little case about a dumb city law may set the standard for how all Second Amendment cases are handled going forward, after the lower courts have spent the last decade trying to restrict the right as much as possible. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/16/2019)
|
| I'm concerned about Roberts and Kavanaugh. If it goes the wrong way, the RKBA may never recover. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. � Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
