|
|
|
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:
AL: Alabama bill would allow churchgoers to carry guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Some Alabama lawmakers want churchgoers to be able to defend themselves in church -- so they are proposing a bill that would allow them to be armed while sitting on the pews.
State Rep. Lynn Greer filed a bill this month in the State Legislature called the "Alabama Church Protection Act," which would allow parishioners to carry guns in church.
Al.com reported the Republican state lawmaker said he proposed the bill, HB 36, at the request of a church in his district after shootings in other states. |
| Comment by:
lbauer
(3/15/2019)
|
| This is Alabama, probably a quarter of the young ladies got a pretty little purse gun from their daddy as a graduation present. In any venue not under TSA or better control I'd estimate that at least 20% of the public are armed. Why would church be any different? Particularly with the media reports of church, synagog, and mosque shootings of late. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
