|
|
|
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:
CT: Tighter Gun Laws on Table
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The legislature’s Judiciary Committee spent 14 hours Monday hearing comments on a series of gun-related bills that among them would require people to show their open-carry permits, prohibit so-called “ghost guns,” and add criminal penalties to existing laws regarding safe storage of firearms.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/14/2019)
|
"What it will do is require a very small degree of diligence on the part of gun owners to ensure that they do not create a situation where someone may die due to their carelessness. What it will do is hold them criminally liable if they do not properly and safely store their firearms."
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why is nobody, NOBODY mentioning this, EVER?
“Held:
“3) …the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” - D.C. v. Heller (2008) |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/14/2019)
|
"What it will do is require a very small degree of diligence on the part of gun owners to ensure that they do not create a situation where someone may die due to their carelessness. What it will do is hold them criminally liable if they do not properly and safely store their firearms."
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why is nobody, NOBODY mentioning this, EVER?
“Held:
“3) …the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” - D.C. v. Heller (2008) |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
