|
|
|
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:
CA: LAPD Chief Warns of Apocalypse if National Concealed Carry Passes
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck warns that national reciprocity for concealed carry will be a disaster in California.
In a May 25 op-ed published by the Los Angeles Times, Beck wrote, “The mere presence of more concealed weapons on California streets would make police work here much more hazardous.”
Beck did not mention, however, that police officers around the nation support gun rights over gun control and specifically support concealed carry for law-abiding citizens. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(5/27/2017)
|
Like Chicken Little, any semi-major improvements on the right to bear arms brings out the Libtards shouting like Chicken Little, there will be blood in the street (the sky is falling). And of course nothing related happens. This law to will run to drive-by media obscurity.
Oh, and Bloomberg will drop more money. Go ahead guy, burn thru your cash.
By the way, has anyone thought of going after Bloombergs businesses, boycott, etc. Might be fun. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(5/27/2017)
|
| Tipical califorinicator, just wants supreme comtrol of the people! |
| Comment by:
JimB
(5/27/2017)
|
| This is the comments of a politician, NOT a true Police Chief. Back made his position clear when he called Los Angeles a Sanctuary City. He does not care about protecting the citizens of L.A. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
