|
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:
NV: Bill would bar suits against shooters in justified killings
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Nevada Assembly Republicans argued in favor of a bill Tuesday that would expand the rights of people who kill someone in self-defense, although critics said it would breed a culture of “shoot first, ask questions later.”
Republican Assemblywoman Shelly Shelton presented AB 171, which would extend protections to people defending their vehicles or homes from an invader and provide civil immunity for people who commit a justifiable homicide. Her voice broke with emotion as she told stories of victims of violent crimes, including Jessica Chambers, a 19-year-old Mississippi woman who was burned alive at a gas station in December. |
Comment by:
Sosalty
(3/5/2015)
|
This is an area where gun rights need to take place. It's odd to see so many private business to place no guns signs in their front windows. Freedom from stress of unreasonable liability to the responsible gun owner should be top priority in many of our so called free states. |
|
|
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) |
|
|