|
|
|
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:
NE: Hastings City Council revisits weapons ordinance
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
After several weeks of work, the Hastings City Council will decide on a new gun law for the city on Monday.
Staffers have drafted an ordinance which re-works a proposal that was tabled in January.
"The idea is to be as minimalistic as we can as far as affected people's rights under the second amendment, but yet you balance that with the protection of the public who might be in those places, and that includes small children as well,” Hastings City Attorney Dave Ptak said.
The new proposal prohibits people with so-called "open carry" weapons from city buildings and parks, as was the law on the books previously. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(2/23/2019)
|
| So what was discussed about laws that criminals will follow?....Cricket sounds... |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| As an individual, I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms. However, as a judge, I know full well that the question of whether handguns can be sold is a political one, not an issue of products liability law, and that this is a matter for the legislatures, not the courts. The unconventional theories advanced in this case (and others) are totally without merit, a misuse of products liability laws. — Judge Buchmeyer, Patterson v. Gesellschaft, 1206 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985) |
|
|
