|
|
|
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:
WA: Gun Enthusiasts Launch Initiative Bid to Repeal Gun Safety Measure
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Firearms enthusiasts in Eastern Washington have launched an initiative campaign to repeal Initiative 1639, the measure passed by voters last November that raises the minimum age for purchase of semiautomatic assault rifles from 18 to 21 and imposes a 10-day waiting period. "I'm pretty certain they know it's going to be challenging. It's serious alright -- this sort of sprang up without warning," Dave Workman, a pro-gun rights writer who broke the story in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, wrote in an e-mail. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/29/2019)
|
"The tables have turned on gun safety in Washington."
It's not "gun safety", you idiot, it's GUN CONTROL. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
