Lock and Load

From Discourse DB
Revision as of 16:18, June 27, 2008 by Yaron Koren (talk | contribs) (New page: {{Item |author=The New York Times editorial board |source=The New York Times |date=June 27, 2008 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27fri1.html |quote="Even if there were a con...)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) The New York Times editorial board
Source The New York Times
Date June 27, 2008
URL http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27fri1.html
Quotes-start.png "Even if there were a constitutional right to possess guns for nonmilitary uses, constitutional rights are not absolute. The First Amendment guarantees free speech, but that does not mean that laws cannot prohibit some spoken words, like threats to commit imminent violent acts. In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued soundly that whatever right gun owners have to unimpeded gun use is outweighed by the District of Columbia’s “compelling” public-safety interests." Quotes-end.png

Add or change this opinion item's references

This item argues against the position Supreme Court was correct in its ruling on the topic District of Columbia v. Heller.