|
|
|
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:
CA: San Fran Illegal Alien Shooter’s Gun Belonged to a Federal Agent
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"By now you’ve probably heard that five-time deportee Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez shot and killed 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle in the sanctuary city of San Francisco over the weekend. A crime he’s admitted to. You may be wondering where an illegal alien felon would get a firearm in one of the most assiduously anti-gun cities in one of the most ardently anti-gun states. 'As latimes.com reports, '…Lopez-Sanchez said he had found the weapon wrapped in a T-shirt on the ground near a bench….' And, if true, who would be irresponsible enough to leave a loaded gun lying around like that? 'The gun…belonged to a federal agent, sources confirmed Tuesday.' . . ."
"Who is the agent? Which agency does he/she work for? ..." ... |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(7/8/2015)
|
| More picante for Trump's gumbo! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
