2 Responses to “”

1. WHAT??????????????????????????
   June 23rd, 2017 @ 12:34 pm

   I’m going to send this article to President Trump, Grassley, and others, if I have time here!

2. taino21
   June 24th, 2017 @ 7:59 am

   We don’t need any reciprocity laws. The Constitution and the courts have said we have already have those rights. Present concealed carry laws and open carry laws who deny citizens their rights are unconstitutional. Bliss v. Commonwealth of Kentucky,12 Littell 90 Ky. 1822, (this was the Kentucky’s appellate court, excerpt from the court decision), “3. That the provisions of the act in question do not import an entire destruction of the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, will not be controverted by the court; for though the citizens are forbid wearing weapons concealed in the manner described in the act, they may, nevertheless, bear arms in any other admissible form. But to be in conflict with the constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form–it is the right to bear arms in defence of the citizens and the state, that is secured by the constitution, and whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution.

   If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.

   And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and [Volume 5, Page 213] such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise”. “No state shall convert a liberty (right) into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105). (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262). Many of these cases have been resolved already by the courts but, the liberal corrupt judges refuse to do their job and instead of looking at the settled cases they keep deciding cases by their own personal views.

Leave a Reply