|
|
|
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:
OR: Anti-Gun Bills Pre-Filed, Legislature to Convene Monday
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Senate Bill 501, sponsored by Senator Rob Wagner (D-19) and Representative Andrea Salinas (D-38), contains numerous, egregious infringements. It would create a permit that would be required to purchase or receive a firearm, with each permit requiring training and being valid for only 90 days, limit purchases to one handgun and one long gun per 30 day period, require firearms be stored in a locked container or with a trigger/cable lock, require reporting of lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours, prohibit the possession of ammunition magazines with a capacity greater than five, require background checks for purchasing ammunition, restrict ammunition purchases to no more than 20 rounds within a 30 day period... |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(1/12/2019)
|
| The ONLY intention that these Oath breaking politicians have, is to deprive you of your freedom, period. You have to be disarmed in order for them to implement their Socialist laws. It seems that America may be a breeding ground for Tyranny. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
