|
|
|
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:
ND: Gun Pre-Emption Bill Sparks Debate Among Lawmakers
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A bill that would bar local governments from passing gun restrictions that are stricter than state law drew strong objections Tuesday from some Omaha and Lincoln senators who want to protect their cities' ordinances.
Lawmakers kicked off a debate on a measure that would allow residents to sue cities and counties if they are adversely affected by a local gun rule.
Supporters say the bill would eliminate a confusing patchwork of local gun ordinances, particularly in Omaha and Lincoln. Law enforcement groups and some elected city officials oppose the bill, arguing that it fails to consider differences between higher-crime urban areas and the rest of the state. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/5/2017)
|
| Yes. Pass preemption now, without any further delay, and stop these liberal stinkholes from infringing their citizens' right to go armed. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
