|
|
|
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:
MO: Gov. Nixon Discusses Gun Legislation at State Fair
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
While bill supporters say it would keep Missourians safe, Nixon says it would allow people with no training and no background check to carry concealed.
However, bill sponsor State Sen. Brian Munzlinger (R-Williamstown) says those individuals can currently open-carry. He says his bill allows them to carry concealed.
Senator Munzlinger tells Missourinet he plans to seek an override during the September Veto Session. Another supporter, State Rep. Chuck Basye (R-Rocheport), says he also intends to vote to override Nixon's veto. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(8/19/2016)
|
"Nixon says it would allow people with no training and no background check to carry concealed."
So, what? |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(8/19/2016)
|
| How hard is it to implement a quality training program in a state? Citizen self-defense data often is safer than law enforcement. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
