|
|
|
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:
RIP 'Docs vs. Glocks' — and Good Riddance
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Florida's so-called "Docs vs. Glocks" law is officially dead. The demise of this ill-conceived — and unconstitutional — law is very good news. Florida has had any number of unnecessary and bad gun laws. Docs vs. Glocks, which essentially tried to stop doctors from asking patients about guns in their homes, had to be near the top of that list. |
| Comment by:
hisself
(6/14/2017)
|
Because, obviously, doctors are thoroughly trained in gun safety and the handling of firearms!
Not sure about the need for a law, but it is nobody's business, including that of my myriad doctors, as to if or how many firearms I have in my home. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(6/14/2017)
|
| They can ask, but we don't have to answer. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
