|
|
|
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:
MO: Defining violent felonies can't go far enough
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Let's fix the problem by adding a list of offenses" is the mantra of Rep. Kevin Austin, R-Springfield.
Unfortunately, it appears that Mr. Austin's proposed legislation, HB 1220, would create new and unending problems when listing what is to be considered a "violent felon" under state law. There happens to be a perfectly good definition available from a federal court already. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(4/30/2015)
|
The disability of Second Amendment rights should hinge on one element, and one element only: convictions for crimes of violence.
Anything else isn't, well, "reasonable". |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. — Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1. |
|
|
