|
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:
FL: Florida Law Would Make It Illegal For Minors To Post Pictures Of Fake Guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Democrat Jason W. B. Pizzo introduced SB 1310 into the Florida Senate. The bill would make it illegal for anyone under 18 to post a picture on the internet of a firearm, BB gun, airsoft gun, or any other device that resembles a gun. This law would also apply to realistic toy guns.
The Miami-Dade Democrat's law would charge the minor with a misdemeanor. The fines can be up to $1000 per violation. In addition to the fine, authorities could also jail the minor for up to one year if convicted of violating the proposed anti-free-speech law.
The law would also require the parents of the minor to attend parenting classes for reprograming. |
Comment by:
xqqme
(3/15/2019)
|
So, in order to obliterate the Second Amendment, Senator Pizzo wants to pi$$ away the First Amendment also. . Nice guy. |
Comment by:
xqqme
(3/15/2019)
|
So, in order to obliterate the Second Amendment, Senator Pizzo wants to pizz all over the First Amendment also. . Nice guy. |
|
|
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) |
|
|