|
|
|
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:
Lawmaker Says House Gun Control Bill Would Restrict Vets' 2nd Amendment Rights
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Before the Florida VA hospital shooting Wednesday night, Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tennessee, went to the House floor to argue that a gun control bill to expand background checks would restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of veterans with mental health problems.
On Wednesday at a joint hearing of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees, and later on the House floor, Roe, the former chairman and now ranking member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, said a clause in the House gun control bill could affect more than a million veterans.
The bill to expand background checks on gun purchases and transfers passed by a vote of 240-190 but is unlikely to gain traction in the Republican-controlled Senate. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(3/2/2019)
|
| Restrict? It's more like knowingly attempting to deprive veterans of their rights without due process. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
