|
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:
IN: New gun legislation takes effect in Indiana - seriously?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Last week in the Lakeshore Chamber of Commerce office we were discussing recent legislative changes taking effect July 1, and office manager Monique mentioned that it is now lawful for Indiana residents to own a sawed-off shotgun.
While a supporter of our 2nd Amendment, I questioned that anyone would seriously introduce legislation that would make it legal to own a sawed-off shotgun, and yet, there it was, Senate Bill 433, signed into law. Under this new law, a sawed-off shotgun is defined as "a shotgun having one or more barrels less than 19 inches in length." Have you ever witnessed the destructive power of one of these weapons? |
Comment by:
xqqme
(7/10/2015)
|
One need only read the closing paragraph to understand the depth of the author's intelligence. His train of thought starts with the assumption that crime VICTIMS are supposed to undergo the firearms purchase background check prior to receiving the high-velocity bullet delivered by a criminal.
"Over the 4th of July weekend, nearly 50 people were shot in the Chicago area. I wonder if they all passed their background checks?"
|
|
|
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) |
|
|