|
|
|
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:
WA Anti-Gunners Show How to Dismantle Preemption, Ban Semi-Autos
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Second Amendment advocates from one coast to the other should be paying close attention to what is happening in Washington state, which has become a test tube for anti-gunners now laying the framework to dismantle state preemption statutes and ban semiautomatic firearms, and it can be traced to King County, where the Board of Health recently adopted a regulation in clear defiance of the state’s 35-year-old preemption law.
|
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(11/21/2018)
|
| Oath Breaking politicians are everywhere in this nation. There are some serious undermining attempts at dismantling our Constitutional form of government. Deprivation of rights!, doing away with due process! These Oath Breakers think that somehow it's ok to assume more, and more power that is not delegated to them by the Constitution. You want a perfect example of a "Slippery Slope", this is it.. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
