|
|
|
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:
RI: Democrat Lawmaker Pushes to End Law-Abiding Citizens, Off-Duty Cops Being Armed on Campus
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Rhode Island State Representative Edith Ajello (D-Providence) is pushing a bill to repeal the state’s current law that allows civilians with concealed carry permits and off-duty police officers to carry firearms on school campuses for self-defense.
Ajello did not cite crimes that have arisen in Rhode Island because of concealed permit holders or off-duty officers with guns, but she did point to the 1999 Columbine attack and the 2012 attack on Sandy Hook. It is interesting to note that both of these incidents happened in gun-free zones, where law-abiding citizens were disarmed in the same way that Ajello wants Rhode Islanders to be disarmed in her state. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(4/17/2015)
|
| I wonder if this proposal is universal ? That is, does it extend to the political element as well ? I'm sure RI's criminal elements will enjoy knowing LEOs attending courses for professional improvement will be disarmed. And the nut bars and/or terrorists will feel ever so much safer with the same knowledge . |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
