|
|
|
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: Minnesota Lawmakers Propeses Bill to Require License for Gun Owners
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Sen. John Marty, (DFL) Roseville, told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS his proposed bill which would require gun owners to have a license would, in the long run, help save lives. Under Marty’s proposed bill, anyone purchasing a gun at a commercial business, gun shows or through individual sales, would have to acquire a license which would require gun safety education and training similar to what people have to do when they obtain a driver’s license.
|
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(3/29/2022)
|
| Maybe DFL needs a new common sense license |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(3/29/2022)
|
| By the way, we have already got our license. it is called a concealed carry permit which cost us around $100 and covers MN laws and a shooting range test. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
