|
|
|
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:
FL: New Bill Would Allow Felons to Own Guns
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A new bill filed earlier this month could make it easier for convicted felons to have their voting and gun rights restored.
The bill, HB 903, was filed on Dec. 6 by State Rep. Cord Byrd (R-Neptune Beach) would allow judges to restore the rights of felons after they've completed prison sentences and probation.
Florida currently prohibits convicted felons from owning firearms or voting.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/13/2017)
|
Common law provides that once a person has "paid his debt" to society, that obligation is OVER.
I understand the need to keep recidivist bad actors disarmed, but no law can do that, and "feel-good" laws that negatively affect people who are NOT recidivist bad actors are profane. They defy the whole concept of our system of individual liberty, responsibility and just restitution.
All the mischief makers have to do to sweep whole classes of people from RKBA is to redefine what constitutes a "felony". For example (and I'll admit that this is an unlikely extreme one), what if the PTB decide that spitting on the sidewalk is a felony?
Are you following me here? They use sleight-of-hand to impose their ridiculous restrictions.
I say, NO. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
