|
|
|
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: Lawmakers from Missouri, Kansas, to discuss measure to reduce gun violence in both states
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
State lawmakers from Missouri and Kansas are pushing similar bills that would restrict firearms for people with domestic violence or stalking restraining orders or convictions, but a pair of Missouri state representatives called the legislation a publicity stunt with no chance of passage.
"We would never look at anything like this," said Rick Brattin, a Harrisonville, Missouri, Republican. "We're not in favor of domestic violence, but with our (concealed carry) permits, someone may not like the fact that you're carrying a weapon and say they feel they're being threatened." |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(2/1/2015)
|
| Four words: Due process of law. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
