|
|
|
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:
IA: Backers say House bill addresses labyrinth of gun restrictions
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Republicans in the Iowa House have passed a bill that would force any Iowa city or county with gun restrictions in a government-owned building to screen people at entrances and have an armed guard inside.
Representative Steven Holt, a Republican from Denison, said it will help ensure Iowans have the right to self defense. It is also about the health and safety of our children and our families, Holt said. It is about my right as a parent to be prepared to defend my wife and my children my family. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/28/2020)
|
"The constitutional right to own a firearm comes with important responsibility regarding community safety and therefore it must come with conditions." - Democrat Representative Beth Wessel-Kroeschell
Not much of a civics student, are ya?
The Bill of Rights places conditions on the GOVERNMENT, not on the people.
"[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table." - D.C. v. Heller (2008) |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
