|
|
|
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:
IL: Local representatives working to keep communities safer
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The House of Representatives passed legislation ( HR-8 ) The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019. This legislation, co-sponsored by 14th District Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Naperville) requires background checks on every gun sale including unlicensed gun dealers. Also included was a carve-out for guns given as gifts, or used as hunting, target shooting or self defense. This legislation is a common sense approach to make us all safer from gun violence. It also closes a loop hole that has allowed criminals to purchase guns. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/23/2020)
|
Mr. Heil:
Local issues are not national issues. That's your first mistake.
Calling infringements "common sense" that impermissibly impact the exercise of fundamental rights the Constitution deems "shall not be infringed" is your second.
No level of government, be it local, state, or federal, are empowered to ignore constitutional protections.
Not understanding that fact is your third.
YOU'RE OUT. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
