|
|
|
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:
MI: Michigan Democrats renew push for background checks for gun sales
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Michigan Democrats on Monday renewed their push to expand background checks to cover all gun sales, citing loopholes that allow online and private transactions to go undetected.
Bills introduced in the Republican-led Legislature would subject the sale of rifles and shotguns, not just handguns, to background checks under state law.
Federal law requires background checks when firearms are bought from licensed dealers but does not cover transactions between unlicensed sellers and buyers — which gun-control advocates have long sought to address.
Democrats pointed to polls in which more than eight in 10 Americans have supported expanded background check requirements in the wake of mass shootings.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/19/2021)
|
| It's none of your business who has what, unless they are criminals, and you can't write the law to assume that everyone is a criminal. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
