|
|
|
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:
RESIST: Washington State Sheriffs Vow to Oppose New Gun Control Laws
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Left Coast is pushing forward with its gun control agenda. Dominated by liberals on coastal cities, Oregon and California have already passed restrictive gun control laws. It’s as expected from these progressive bastions. Oregon is proposing laws that would make the only legal firearms to own in the state the ones that Davy Crockett used. I exaggerate, but you get my point. Washington looks to complete the West Coast’s evisceration of gun rights. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(1/31/2019)
|
| There are those that are resisting the Constitution, and then there are those that are resisting unconstitutional activities against law abiding citizens. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
