|
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:
Don't Repeal Indiana's Gun Permit Law
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A proposal that would repeal Indiana's gun permit law — which has failed in the last two legislative sessions — has made an unwelcome return. Last week, a legislative committee began reviewing the proposal that would have Indiana join a dozen other states that don't require a license to carry a handgun in public — the so-called "constitutional carry." State Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour, wants to repeal the gun permit law, arguing that law-abiding citizens shouldn't have to get state permission to carry out their Second Amendment rights. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/30/2017)
|
Yes, repeal it, and urge all the other states to repeal theirs as well.
What's WRONG with you? The federal Constitution's mandate of "shall not be infringed" is now binding on every state in the union, and no fundamental right can be preconditioned upon proving one is "worthy" of its exercise.
I thought we already went through this with the poll tax and literacy test nonsense for voting. |
|
|
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) |
|
|