|
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:
CA: San Jose City Council to Vote on Ordinances for Gun Violence
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
San Jose City Council will vote at Tuesday’s meeting on gun harm reduction ordinances proposed in the wake of a tragic mass shooting that took nine lives at the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) yard in May--including a first-of-its kind mandate for insurance, and an annual fee for gun owners to relieve the public cost of gun violence. Ahead of the vote, the Pacific Institute on Research and Evaluation (PIRE) provided preliminary estimates from its Public Cost of Gun Harm Study for San José. PIRE estimates the cost to taxpayers stemming from gun violence in San José is $442 million annually.
|
Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/30/2021)
|
How difficult is it to understand that a whole category of law-abiding, peaceable citizens can't be penalized for the criminal acts of individuals?
This kind of thinking is, well, insane. |
|
|
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) |
|
|