|
|
|
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:
CA: Police Want Exemptions from New Los Angeles Gun Restrictions
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Before you start reading this story, it’s important to remember that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect citizens from the tyranny of the state. Thus, when state agents want extra special protection not afforded to the citizen, we have a problem." ...
"Los Angeles is looking to impose even more gun restrictions on its residents. City Councilman Paul Krekorian’s ... new 'plan' will require residents to lock away their handguns and disable them with trigger locks."
"You might as well just drop your self-defense weapons off in another zip code."
"The police union, however wants an exception to this rule. The proposal currently exempts active-duty and reserve officers but not retired police officers." ... |
| Comment by:
gariders
(6/30/2015)
|
| No. no exemptions for anyone. All should follow the law. even the police and the stupid politicians. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
