|
|
|
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:
Not All Americans Have The Right To Bear Arms
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
There are also limits to the types of firearms that can be owned by individuals without special licenses. Semi-automatic handguns and rifles are legal to own, but fully automatic weapons are only legal for police, the military, and persons with special licenses. In addition there are limits to the type of ammunition that can be owned by private individuals. Learn more about federal gun laws as well as laws that vary by state from this infographic! |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(8/19/2016)
|
" ... fully automatic weapons are only legal for police, the military, and persons with special licenses...."
Not perzactly. IF you live in a state which permits the ownership of full-auto, the weapon must be on tha National Firearms Registry, MUST be made before 1986 and one MUST have the tax stamp for it, having paid the $200.00 tax. It's NOT a "special permit"...it's a TAX. And yes it is unconstitutional but it IS the "LAW." |
| Comment by:
laker1
(8/19/2016)
|
| Since police arrive after the fact with full auto, we the people , the first responders to violent crime, should be disadvantaged and not allowed full auto. Liberal logic/oxymoron. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
