|
|
|
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:
IN: IU law professor: What are the facts about constitutional carry?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
What is a fact?
This simple question was raised time and again with respect to permitless carry on Sept. 7, when members of an Indiana General Assembly study committee called for “facts” while questioning research linking increased crime and firearm homicide rates to laws that make it easier to carry a handgun.
This word is pretty easy to define. Merriam-Webster says a fact is “a piece of information presented as having objective reality.” At the inaugural permitless carry hearing on Aug. 22, committee members demanded just this: empirical evidence regarding permitless carry.
Ed.: A law professor ought not confuse a fact with a true fact, but many antis don't have any intellectual honesty. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/1/2017)
|
FACT:
In all the states where permitless carry is lawful, there have been no issues, period.
None.
That single fact ends the 'debate'. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| As an individual, I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms. However, as a judge, I know full well that the question of whether handguns can be sold is a political one, not an issue of products liability law, and that this is a matter for the legislatures, not the courts. The unconventional theories advanced in this case (and others) are totally without merit, a misuse of products liability laws. — Judge Buchmeyer, Patterson v. Gesellschaft, 1206 F.Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985) |
|
|
