|
|
|
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:
CT: Tighter Gun Laws on Table
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The legislature’s Judiciary Committee spent 14 hours Monday hearing comments on a series of gun-related bills that among them would require people to show their open-carry permits, prohibit so-called “ghost guns,” and add criminal penalties to existing laws regarding safe storage of firearms.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/14/2019)
|
"What it will do is require a very small degree of diligence on the part of gun owners to ensure that they do not create a situation where someone may die due to their carelessness. What it will do is hold them criminally liable if they do not properly and safely store their firearms."
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why is nobody, NOBODY mentioning this, EVER?
“Held:
“3) …the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” - D.C. v. Heller (2008) |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/14/2019)
|
"What it will do is require a very small degree of diligence on the part of gun owners to ensure that they do not create a situation where someone may die due to their carelessness. What it will do is hold them criminally liable if they do not properly and safely store their firearms."
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why is nobody, NOBODY mentioning this, EVER?
“Held:
“3) …the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” - D.C. v. Heller (2008) |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
