|
|
|
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:
NY: The Prosecutors and the Pagans: Two Sides of the Empire State’s Gun Laws
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Early this month, members of the gun-control group Prosecutors Against Gun Violence met at a “Manhattan Summit” and took the time to express their dismay and alarm over federal bills proposing national concealed carry reciprocity. At the group’s news conference, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr., explained that if the “dangerous” reciprocity legislation passes, someone from neighboring Vermont, “where there are no permit requirements, could come into New York City with a loaded gun, come to Times Square, go to the subways and be amongst us in our communities.” |
| Comment by:
dasing
(4/22/2017)
|
| Lions, tigers and bears, OH my!!!! |
| Comment by:
jac
(4/22/2017)
|
| They already do. Criminals don't obey laws and think nothing of carrying a gun anywhere they please. Reciprocity would only change things for law abiding people that are not causing any problems. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
