This is just wrong. State law shouldn't ***** the constitutional right to bear arms, which it does in this case for the following reason: R.G. was traveling from California (where his gun was legal) to ******ia (where his gun was legal), and was only passing through New York (where he gun should be legal). Meaning that this application of state law of N.Y. is preventing his ability to exercise his constitutionally protected right to bear arms.
Something else to consider is that most of the folks who saw the R.G. on the 700 club (i bet) are politically conservative and pro-2nd *********. If this is spun right, R.G. could become a "cause célèbre" for the currently hotly debated gun control issue. I hope that it does, and that he benefits from this non-sense. Most relatively fair-minded people will side with R.G., and his lawyers will be able to work out a deal once the D.A. has finished rubbing one out over his latest news item.
P.S. - Legalities aside (I don't know that much about the law) it is simply wrong in principle that this is happening in the United Stated of America.
Something else to consider is that most of the folks who saw the R.G. on the 700 club (i bet) are politically conservative and pro-2nd *********. If this is spun right, R.G. could become a "cause célèbre" for the currently hotly debated gun control issue. I hope that it does, and that he benefits from this non-sense. Most relatively fair-minded people will side with R.G., and his lawyers will be able to work out a deal once the D.A. has finished rubbing one out over his latest news item.
P.S. - Legalities aside (I don't know that much about the law) it is simply wrong in principle that this is happening in the United Stated of America.
Comment