|
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:
NY: The awful GOP gun bill
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The last thing New York City needs is to invite in people with guns. Yet that’s just what the Republicans in Congress and President Trump would have us do.
The mechanism would be the extraordinarily dangerous Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which would take away states’ rights to determine who gets to walk around with a hidden firearm and who doesn’t. It would allow anyone with a concealed carry permit from any state to use it in all states without fear of prosecution. |
Comment by:
dasing
(4/7/2017)
|
That is one of the basis of our Republic, why won't NY join the union? |
Comment by:
netsyscon
(4/7/2017)
|
Because it is run by a bunch of Libtard Dem's |
Comment by:
netsyscon
(4/7/2017)
|
Because it is run by a bunch of Libtard Dem's |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/7/2017)
|
I left a comment on this site a couple of hours ago.
I went back just now to see if anyone responded.
The site sez, "0 Comments".
And there are no comments to be found, although there were a bunch when I originally posted up.
WTF? |
|
|
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) |
|
|