|
|
|
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:
MI: Switchblades Would be Legal in Michigan Under Bill OK'd by Senate Panel
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Switchblade knives would be legal in Michigan under legislation approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, is the sponsor of SB 245. It would repeal the part of the Michigan Penal Code that outlaws knives that open with mechanical assistance, such as switch-blades.
Jones said that it's often said old black and white films featuring gangs and knives were the reason knives like switchblades were outlawed in the first place.
Tim Fitzgerald, a legislative Liaison for the Michigan State Police, said right now only about half of the state's local prosecutors are charging for switchblades. The current ban "is something that we have absolutely no problem with the repeal of,"
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/29/2017)
|
| 'About time. All states should decriminalize automatic knives, and failing that, a case should be brought up the chain to the SCOTUS striking down any recalcitrant states. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
