|
|
|
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:
NC: Some Mecklenburg Commissioners Want to Ban Guns in Parks. Do They Have The Power?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Some Mecklenburg County commissioners want to explore whether they can prohibit guns in county parks and recreational facilities, in what would be a shift in direction for the new, all-Democratic board. But it’s unclear how much the county board could change the current rules, which generally allow concealed carry permit holders to carry firearms in county parks and on greenways, except for land leased from schools, where guns are already banned. A state law passed in 2013 significantly limits where local governments can prohibit concealed carry permit holders and specifically exempts greenways and open park space. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/29/2019)
|
| What is it about a state law that specifically says "You can't do that." do these Democrat yahoos don't understand? |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(1/29/2019)
|
| The all- new Democratic board needs to convince their friends to quit breaking laws, and leave the law abiding folks alone. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
