|
|
|
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:
IN: Lawmaker: No more gun permits
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A state legislator wants Indiana to do away with requiring permits to carry firearms and instead adopt a constitutional carry law.
Such a law would eliminate the need for citizens to apply for permits, be fingerprinted and pay fees to openly carry a gun or have a gun in their vehicle.
District 69 Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour, said Indiana’s gun permit process is “a burden and infringes on law-abiding citizens’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.” He also said the state shouldn’t be making money on those rights. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/9/2016)
|
“I don’t see the point of it, really,” Lakins said of changing the law. “It’s not hard to get your permit, and if it’s because of money, then I don’t think you need to be packing a gun.”
Yo, dude. What you 'think' I need has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
