|
|
|
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:
NH: Nurse caring for boy in wheelchair asked to leave NH thrift store for carrying gun
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A conflict between the right to carry a firearm and the right to private property recently occurred at the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, a thrift store and food pantry on Union Avenue.
Customers allegedly became uneasy when a nurse caring for a 5-year-old disabled boy in a wheelchair entered the store carrying a holstered firearm, according to the Laconia Daily Sun.
President of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul Erika Johnson asked the women to leave her firearm in her car as guns are not permitted within the store.
Johnson reached out to the Laconia Police Department, who assured her that she is authorized to deny firearms from the store according to N.H. laws, Capt. Matt Canfield confirmed with the Laconia Daily Sun. |
| Comment by:
kangpc
(8/19/2016)
|
Why ban guns in thrift shops -- because they're no good for shooting fleas?
Unless this absurd restriction is lifted, my shadow will never again darken the threshold of a St. Vincent de Paul thrift shop. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(8/19/2016)
|
St Vincent DeCatholicChurchHatesGuns?
And this comes as a surprise? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
