|
|
|
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:
VT: Senate Judiciary Committee Acting on Gun Bills This Week
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
However, NRA members should respectfully ask that the committee NOT advance S.22 by Sen. Phil Baruth, the architect of last year’s S.55. This bill would create a 48-hour waiting period for all firearms sales and require that when a firearm is not in a person’s immediate possession or control, the firearm must be locked in a safe storage depository or rendered incapable of being fired. This legislation would kill gun shows and decimate local businesses. This legislation would have virtually no impact on public safety or suicide prevention. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/15/2019)
|
"In addition, the storage provision of the bill would render firearms useless in self-defense situations."
Which has already been declared unconstitutional in D.C. v. Heller, and binds the states and their subdivisions via McDonald v. Chicago.
“Held:
“3) …the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” - D.C. v. Heller (2008) |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
