|
|
|
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:
AL: Pelham police chief speaks out against handgun legislative bill
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
At a town hall meeting at the Pelham Civic Complex on Monday, March 13, Pelham Police Chief Larry Palmer urged city leaders and residents to contact state legislators to speak out against the passing of Senate Bill 24.
If passed by the Alabama Legislature, a permit would no longer be required for a person to conceal carry a handgun and constitutional carry would be the law. Senate Bill 24, which was introduced by Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa, would allow full concealment of a firearm on one’s person or in a vehicle. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(3/16/2017)
|
| If his departmemt is that reliant on the money from permits, the mayor should audit them! |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(3/16/2017)
|
| Could've been avoided by dropping licensing fees, banishing gun free zones, setting just liability laws related to self-defense, ... other words, doing your jobs rather than just drawing cushy pay. Lots of big money piffed in other places. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
