|
|
|
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:
WA: More Lawmen Oppose I-1639; Gallup Majority Against Semi-Auto Ban
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Another law enforcement group has come out swinging against gun control Initiative 1639 as a new Gallup survey reveals that a majority of Americans now oppose a ban on so-called “semiautomatic assault rifles,” which are the target of the 30-page measure. Almost simultaneously, the first hard-hitting radio advertisement blasting the billionaire-backed initiative has started airing. Sponsored by Washingtonians and the National Rifle Assn. for Freedom, 2018, the advertisement may be heard here.
|
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(10/24/2018)
|
| The People of America have never authorized their elected representatives to destroy their Bill of Rights. Citizens must demand that their elected officials be bound by the chains of the Constitution. Persons of little character, or honor disobey their oath. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/24/2018)
|
"Under I-1639, say critics, people would have to lock up their guns, thus rendering them useless for self-defense in the event of home invasion."
And this issue has already been visited and ruled on by the Court:
“Held:
“3) …the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” - D.C. v. Heller (2008)
IOW, this initiative blatantly thumbs its nose at SCOTUS precedent, and seeks to institute a provision that has already been held unconstitutional.
Disgraceful. |
|
|
