|
|
|
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:
MN: Minnesota Lawmakers Propeses Bill to Require License for Gun Owners
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Sen. John Marty, (DFL) Roseville, told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS his proposed bill which would require gun owners to have a license would, in the long run, help save lives. Under Marty’s proposed bill, anyone purchasing a gun at a commercial business, gun shows or through individual sales, would have to acquire a license which would require gun safety education and training similar to what people have to do when they obtain a driver’s license.
|
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(3/29/2022)
|
| Maybe DFL needs a new common sense license |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(3/29/2022)
|
| By the way, we have already got our license. it is called a concealed carry permit which cost us around $100 and covers MN laws and a shooting range test. |
|
|
| 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)] |
|
|
