|
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:
WI: Right-to-carry gun bill clears Wisconsin panel
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Concealed weapons could be carried in Wisconsin without a permit under a “right-to-carry” bill headed to the state Senate for a vote as soon as next month.
The Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee voted 3-2 along party lines Tuesday to pass the measure. Democrats objected, saying it didn’t make sense to allow for the carrying of deadly weapons without any training or licensing requirements.
“This bill supports the people who want to weaken firearms laws, and I think we should strengthen them,” said Democratic Sen. Fred Risser, of Madison. “We have a problem in this country with too much liberalization of firearms laws and this just adds to it.” |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/21/2017)
|
“We have a problem in this country with too much liberalization of firearms laws and this just adds to it.”
Baloney. ONLY LAW-ABIDING PEOPLE OBEY LAWS. The problem is with those who don't, you idiot. |
|
|
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) |
|
|