|
|
|
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: What's Next For Indiana's Gun Laws?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Many consider Indiana a “gun friendly” state. And in recent years there has been an effort to loosen some restrictions the state does impose, but as gun violence escalates there is also push back.
At the end of a 2017 special study committee, Indiana legislative staff attorney Akash Burney reviewed the state’s gun laws.
“Indiana does not require handgun owners to be licensed or register individual handguns,” Burney read, “Indiana only requires a license if that individual desire to carry a handgun in public.” |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/30/2017)
|
"[M]ost people are on the same page as us,” she says.
Which is why the Framers included bearing arms as a RIGHT.
Rights are not subject to what "most people" want. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
