|
|
|
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:
Marco Rubio introducing bill to stop gun purchases by suspected terrorists
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio is introducing another bill aimed at preventing suspected terrorists from buying weapons, this time with a 10-year look-back provision on anyone who had previously been investigated.
The bill, dubbed the Terror Intelligence Improvement Act, would require federal agencies to coordinate efforts so that anyone who has been investigated for terrorism by any federal agency in the past decade would be flagged if he or she tries to buy a gun or explosive. There would then be a three-day delay on that purchase while federal authorities determine whether to go to court to seek a permanent injunction against the purchase. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(9/15/2016)
|
| Does Rubio's bill strengthen legal gun owners' 'due process' and all other (Bill of) Rights? |
| Comment by:
punch
(9/15/2016)
|
| "A right delayed is a right denied." -- Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
