|
|
|
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: SAFE Act Part 2 on Tap For Coming Week
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It was six years ago that Cuomo declared the SAFE Act would make New Yorkers safer. Over half a decade later, there is zero evidence the SAFE Act has done anything more than punish law-abiding gun owners. During Cuomo’s tenure, nearly a million New Yorkers have left the state. This latest push for more gun control laws is nothing more than a resounding indictment of the SAFE Act’s complete failure. What has become abundantly clear is that this is nothing more than political pandering to his extreme anti-gun base.
Several bills are going to move next week which include an accessory ban, mandatory storage, and so-called “red flag” legislation, among others. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(1/26/2019)
|
| The People of America have never authorized their elected servants to destroy their Bill of Rights, The Peoples' Rights. The blatant disregard for the Constitution shows nothing but total contempt for Freedom. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
