|
|
|
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:
NY: Locals Divided Over Plan To Take Guns Away From All Domestic Abusers
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"They are convicted of a felony, yes, I believe they should not have their firearms. They should be taken away. But just to blanketly say that any misdemeanor will make you lose your firearms for life, is not right," said Morse.
Morse says there are different levels of misdemeanors and not all should cost someone their firearms. Lewis County Sheriff Mike Carpinelli agrees.
"An instance where there are words that are shouted, there's a cell phone that is thrown, a door is kicked in, that is no reason to take somebody's Second Amendment right away," said Carpinelli.
This is just the first of several proposals the governor hopes to unveil next month as part of his State of the States address. |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(12/15/2017)
|
| According to leftists, criminals, including rapists, murderers and other evildoers are amenable to rehabilitation and release into society, but an emotionally charged shouting match (and doesn't the risk of losing the relationship add fuel to that fire), where both parties controlled their anger and didn't escalate to violence is suddenly cause for a lifetime suspension of a Constitutionally protected Right. Maybe they're just fearful of what they might do with a firearm and are engaged in classic projection of their own flaws and fears onto others, thinking, "Hey, if I murdered someone, it'd somehow be justified, because I 'care'... but if one of those evil guys who actually wants to have a gun exhibits any level of anger..." |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/15/2017)
|
| What's next, burning the Reichstag? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
