|
|
|
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:
MI: These Michigan counties have highest rate of handgun ownership
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Often maligned for the level of violence around metro Detroit, the three-county area surrounding the city has some of the lowest per capita legal handgun ownership in the state, according to an analysis of the latest data from Michigan State Police.
MSP statistics updated as of Oct. 2, show rates for the metro area of approved concealed pistol licenses at 68 firearms per every 1,000 residents in Macomb, about 62 in Wayne and 61 in Oakland County, according to a Free Press analysis. That’s nearly half the rate of legal gun ownership of some of the more rural parts of the state, such as Alcona, Keweenaw and Montmorency counties, which tallied 122, 119 and 114 approved licenses per 1,000 residents, according to the analysis. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(10/13/2017)
|
Don't tell me the Freep still doesn't understand the difference between a handgun registration and a Concealed Pistol License.
Hint: There are millions of the former and only 500,000 of the latter. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
