|
|
|
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:
Farenthold introduces bill protecting gun rights for military families
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Congressman Blake Farenthold introduced a new bill on Capital Hill to protect Second Amendment rights for military families.
The "Protect Our Military Families' Second Amendment Rights Act" allows spouses of active-duty service members to purchase firearms in the state where they live due to military orders.
Currently, the Gun Control Act of 1968 mandates that citizens can legally purchase a handgun in the state where they are considered residents. Exceptions were made for active-duty military members, but not their spouses. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(1/6/2017)
|
| Don't say spouses, say 'dependents living outside of their chosen state of residence due to the military member's duty assignment'. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
