|
|
|
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:
MI: Gun control advocates applaud Meijer’s open carry request
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Meijer waded into the national conversation on gun safety Monday, announcing that it’s requesting that shoppers do not openly carry firearms in its stores.
The move, announced by the Walker-based retail giant on Twitter, drew praise from gun control activists, who called Meijer’s announcement a “common-sense” move that seeks to “create a culture of gun safety.”
Meanwhile, firearms proponents were critical of the move.
“It’s obviously their decision, their property, and I’m assuming that gun owners who are law abiding peaceful people will abide by the decision,” said Steve Dulan, a board member of the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners. “But it certainly doesn’t create any more safety there.” |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(9/11/2019)
|
| Just don't patronize them. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
