|
|
|
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:
MN: ATF Lets Some Gun Buyers Skip Background Checks
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Minnesota residents who have permits to carry handguns may now be able to purchase guns from licensed dealers without the normally required background checks. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said Friday that it has determined that Minnesota's requirements for getting a permit to carry satisfy the background check requirements under federal law for purchasing a firearm. That means carry permits with expiration dates of Aug. 1, 2019, or later, now qualify as alternatives to usual the FBI instant background checks. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/1/2017)
|
| Permits to purchase are facially unconstitutional. Given the immediate NICS check in place (i.e. the "least intrusive means possible" to achieve the compelling government interest), purchase permits are excessive, and therefore impermissible. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
