|
|
|
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:
PA: Does Buying A Gun Help With Coronavirus?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gun and ammunition sales are surging across Pennsylvania and the rest of the country.
Kim Stolfer, president and co-founder of Firearms Owners Against Crime, says sales are up 100 to 600 percent.
The impetus is two-fold, arising from the fear of the future impact of the coronavirus pandemic.
First, could there be a breakdown in law and order as a result of millions of people being unprepared for the virus and targeting those who have prepared? |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/19/2020)
|
"A national survey last fall found that 83 percent of women and 74 percent of men favored mandatory storage of firearms under lock."
*sigh* This again. 😒
Why, in the face of these widespread efforts, is NO ONE citing the fact that the Heller Court has already held such laws unconstitutional?
“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) |
|
|
