|
|
|
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:
MI: Lawmakers must close the open carry loophole for gun-free zones
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Michigan lawmakers must act swiftly to ban the open carrying of firearms in gun-free zones, before efforts by brazen open carry advocates go any further.
Guns do not belong in sensitive places. Schools, colleges, day cares, churches, hospitals, courts, entertainment and sports venues, and taverns are all deemed gun-free zones by Michigan law, and the Supreme Court has affirmed the right of states to set these restrictions.
Banning all firearms in sensitive places would keep guns out of our schools, put an end to an overwrought debate and still preserve the constitutional rights of all of their constituents.
Note: In their opinion it would end debate and preserve rights. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(4/17/2015)
|
| Now if those agreeing with the expressed philosophy could just get all the nuts and armed criminals to agree. Right now all a "Gun Free Zone" is a "freebie" sign for those with evil intent. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
