|
|
|
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:
MN: Bipartisan work gives greater Minnesota legislative success
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Guns often are among the hottest issues during a legislative session, but not in 2017.
The most-discussed item was the "stand your ground" measure that would have allowed more freedom to use deadly force in self defense. But that did not make it into a final bill.
"The 2017 legislative session was adjourned last night without a single dangerous gun bill being passed -- or even being voted on," the Protect Minnesota anti-gun organization wrote to members Tuesday. "This is an amazing accomplishment in a year when the 'gun rights' party is in control of both the House and the Senate." |
| Comment by:
dasing
(5/25/2017)
|
| These people are either stupid or anti-american...it is NOT 'gun rights' it is civil rights!!! |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(5/25/2017)
|
| Well that is settled. Now it is time for the Deplorables to come together and replace the "anti-gunners" party and the Republicans that don't know why they are there. 2018 is coming very soon. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
