|
|
|
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:
CA: What Is Proposition 63?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Proposition 63 would require background checks for the purchase of ammunition, and it would ban large-capacity magazines. It would also make it a felony to steal a gun. Its supporters say it will keep guns and bullets out of the wrong hands while opponents say it imposes costly burdens on law enforcement agencies and taxpayers.
|
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(11/7/2016)
|
| You're already a serf if you live in Cali. When moving from there to Alabama 24 months ago, I noted the near barren shelves of gun shops compared the gun shops in rural Alabama. No, I couldn't buy a Gen 4 Glock pistol, or many other common pistols, back west. Once my residency kicked in, with background check it was a 20 minute process to purchase a self defense pistol of MY CHOICE. When I moved in 2014, I couldn't shoot ground squirrels in the national forests with an air rifle because most the state was a supposed 'condor zone' that needed protection from 'lead' (no scientific basis). |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
