|
|
|
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: WV Congressman Mooney introduces bill defending second amendment rights
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Mooney said the bill would remove statutory burdens on law-abiding gun owners and improve the legal firearm purchase process for active-duty military and law-abiding citizens.
“As a staunch supporter and defender of the Second Amendment, I'm committed to eliminating the archaic red tape burdening gun owners who legally purchase firearms across the nation,” Scalise said. “For decades now, our gun laws have made it harder and more costly to legally purchase guns in other states and then safely bring them home. I'm proud to introduce this legislation with my friend and colleague Rep. Alex Mooney in order to remove these burdensome and unnecessary restrictions so we can bring firearm laws into the 21st Century.” |
| Comment by:
Taos_Trapper
(5/12/2015)
|
| Why just ACTIVE DUTY military? There are hundreds of thousands of veterans who have served their country proudly and honorably who should be included as well! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
