|
|
|
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:
CT: Sandy Hook panel urges further tightening of Connecticut gun laws
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A Connecticut panel charged with coming up with ways to reduce school violence after the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School plans to urge the state to strengthen its already strict gun laws.
While the state adopted some of the toughest rules on gun ownership in the United States following the attack at a Newtown school that left 20 children and six educators dead, the panel voted on Friday to ask Governor Dannel Malloy to restrict gun ownership further in its final report next month. |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/17/2015)
|
Predictable result. This is what you get when the liberals control the government and load the panel with a bunch of panti wetters.
If they really wanted to protect the kids, they would remove schools from the list of victim disarmament zones. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
