|
|
|
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:
IN: Legislators Consider ‘Constitutional Carry’ for Hoosiers
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A push to allow Hoosiers to carry handguns without a license was the focus of a nearly five-hour committee hearing at the statehouse Tuesday. "Constitutional carry" is based on the idea that the Second Amendment already gives people the right to carry a handgun, so additional steps such as licensing are unnecessary. State representative Jim Lucas (R-District 69) authored a bill during the last legislative session to repeal the law that requires Hoosiers to have a gun permit. The bill was sent to committee for further discussion. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/23/2017)
|
Re: “Constitutional carry” is based on the idea that the Second Amendment already gives people the right to carry a handgun, so additional steps such as licensing are unnecessary.
This is a misstatement of fact. The principle is that the Second Amendment codifies a preexisting right, and exists to prohibit the government from restricting it.
Re: “I would just plea, as a member of a community, that individual rights need to be balanced against rights of the community,” said Rachel Guglielmo.
“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes [it] out of the hands of government[.]” – D.C. v. Heller (2008) |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
