|
|
|
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:
MD: Beware if you travel in the State of Maryland
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
There are two stories here (at least). The first is simple: Be aware of this if you are traveling through the State of Maryland.
The second is for those who hold the idea that: "why should gun owners have anything to fear from gun registration if they've not done anything wrong." John Filippidis did nothing wrong but read what happened to him and his family: |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(1/3/2015)
|
As I've posted prior, we ought to be asking more, (and more searching) questions on the "how" this stop was accomplished. Lots of cars go by any posted trooper every day. Why, (or more importantly, HOW ) did they pick this one ?
And why, in a state with serious problems with violence and felony gun possession, are they, very obviously, "targeting" out of state CCW holders passing through ?
Could it be another "revenue-raising measure " inflicted upon the travel public by MD ?
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
