|
|
|
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:
WV: Tomblin vetoes bill to eliminate need for concealed-carry permits
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin on Friday vetoed a bill that would have eliminated criminal penalties for carrying concealed firearms without a permit (SB347), his office announced.
In a statement, Tomblin said, “Throughout my career, I have strongly supported the Second Amendment, as demonstrated by my repeated endorsements and high grades from the National Rifle Association. However, I must also be responsive to the apprehension of law enforcement officers from across the state, who have concerns about the bill as it relates to the safety of their fellow officers.”
|
| Comment by:
kangpc
(3/21/2015)
|
So now it's official, as announced by the governor: West Virginia is a police state.
The rights of the people are secondary to the safety of law enforcement officers.
It just goes to prove that political party means nothing. Republican Tomblin joins with Democrat Manchin and Democrat/Republican/Independent (whatever works) Bloomberg to relegate the people to second place behind the police.
You know about the Kennedy, Bush and Cuomo dynasties. Do you also know about the Manchin dynasty?
http://politicalgraveyard.com/families/23210.html |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
