|
|
|
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:
Gun Ban Struck Down for Involuntarily Committed
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gibbons was unmoved by the government's mention of the 2007 school shooting at Virginia Tech as justification for the lifetime ban.
"This is compelling evidence of the need to bar firearms from those currently suffering from mental illness and those just recently removed from an involuntary commitment," she wrote. "It does not, however, answer why Congress is justified in permanently barring anyone who has been previously committed, particularly in cases like Tyler's, where a number of healthy, peaceable years separate the individual from their troubled history." |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(9/16/2016)
|
| Gibbons is as consistent as any gun banner. Along with claims of saving lives, gun banners enable the insane and criminally inclined to bloody the reputation of responsible gun owners. They are willing to undermine your safety, even contribute to deaths, just to keep their narrative of reducing 'gun violence' alive. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
