|
|
|
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:
Selling vintage military handguns to civilians is common sense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Another was my amendment to allow the Army to transfer its surplus vintage firearms to the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) which has its southern headquarters in Anniston and will soon have the CMP park open in June in Talladega County.
If you’re a gun owner like I am, you may be familiar with the M1911A1. This iconic pistol used to serve as the standard U.S. Armed Forces sidearm, until it was replaced by the Berretta 9mm pistol. Although a few thousand of these pistols have been sold to foreign countries for a small fee, the remainder are being held in storage. That costs the taxpayer about $200,000 a year. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(5/21/2015)
|
| CMP programs and processes have multiple 'safeguards' providing the nearest thing possible to an 'ironclad guarantee' these obsolescent weapons will be responsibly owned and used. There's more than a little irony in the concern of 'officialdom' about returning obsolescent weapons to the taxpayer when government is liberally giving modern weapons of far greater lethality to uncertain 'allies' or potential enemies. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
