|
|
|
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:
Kamala Harris Vows to Tighten Gun Control Laws Through Executive Action If Elected
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Senator Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) said Monday that as president she would unilaterally tighten gun control laws through executive action if Congress did not pass legislation to do so within her first 100 days in office. Harris explained during CNN’s town hall event in New Hampshire that she would use her executive authority to require that anyone who sells more than five guns per year conduct a background check on all sales, effectively eliminating their status as a “private seller” in a move that would be vulnerable to legal challenge.
|
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(4/24/2019)
|
Since recent presidents seem to be using arbitrary Executive Orders I think we could make government REALLY EFFICIENT and SAVE LOTS OF $$$$$$ by abolishing the legislature and simply make the president dictator-for-life.
/sarcasm.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/24/2019)
|
| "Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out." - David Horowitz |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
