|
|
|
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:
VA: Assault firearms ban passes House committee
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Monumental lobbying efforts by gun-rights proponents moved the needle in Richmond on a promised assault weapons ban but sweeping changes are still on the horizon.
On Friday a marked-up, edited and re-worked assault weapons ban cleared its first hurdle and moved out the House of Delegates Public Safety Committee. House Bill 961 proposes to add language to the state code that will define an “assault firearm” and put limits in place on the buying, selling and transferring of such weapons. The bill will also outlaw magazines that hold more than 12 rounds. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(2/9/2020)
|
| The more that we watch politicians, the more we understand how criminals think. Ban this, ban that, zero tolerance, prohibit this, forbid that, disallowed now, outlawed just because I said so, and the list goes on and on. You don't vote on, charge a fee for, or give permission to law abiding citizens to exercise Constitutional rights...Serve not Rule.. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
