|
|
|
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:
WV: Tomblin vetoes bill to eliminate need for concealed-carry permits
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin on Friday vetoed a bill that would have eliminated criminal penalties for carrying concealed firearms without a permit (SB347), his office announced.
In a statement, Tomblin said, “Throughout my career, I have strongly supported the Second Amendment, as demonstrated by my repeated endorsements and high grades from the National Rifle Association. However, I must also be responsive to the apprehension of law enforcement officers from across the state, who have concerns about the bill as it relates to the safety of their fellow officers.”
|
| Comment by:
kangpc
(3/21/2015)
|
So now it's official, as announced by the governor: West Virginia is a police state.
The rights of the people are secondary to the safety of law enforcement officers.
It just goes to prove that political party means nothing. Republican Tomblin joins with Democrat Manchin and Democrat/Republican/Independent (whatever works) Bloomberg to relegate the people to second place behind the police.
You know about the Kennedy, Bush and Cuomo dynasties. Do you also know about the Manchin dynasty?
http://politicalgraveyard.com/families/23210.html |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
