|
|
|
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:
WA: Legislation to Expand Gun-Free Zones to be Heard
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Next week, committees in the Washington State Legislature will be hearing legislation that would expand arbitrary zones where law-abiding citizens are left defenseless while nothing is done to hinder criminals. On February 11th, the Senate Committee on Law & Justice will be hearing Senate Bill 5434 and on February 13th, the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary will be hearing the companion House Bill 1530. Please contact committee members and urge them to OPPOSE SB 5434 and HB 1530. Click the “Take Action” button below to contact committee members. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(2/9/2019)
|
| No majority has the authority. You don't negotiate, or vote on rights. Honor the Oath Office.. |
| Comment by:
jac
(2/9/2019)
|
They have worked so well in the past.
Of course someone bent on killing people would not do so in a victim disarmament zone because that would be breaking the law. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
