|
|
|
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:
VA: McLean gun store located near school fires up controversy
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A firearms store in McLean has become the focal point of a debate over guns that has embroiled Fairfax County for months and even reached the halls of the Virginia State Capitol in Richmond just before the General Assembly convened Jan. 13.
In the latest chapter of this ongoing saga, many local protestors assembled outside the store on Jan. 16 to express their support for newly-submitted legislation that would give localities the power to create gun-store-free zones around schools.
“We wanted this rally to show community support for the legislation and our legislators in Richmond,” said McLean resident Vance Gore, who helped organize the rally. |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/23/2016)
|
Someone please tell me how the location of a gun store in proximity to a school creates a problem.
This is just another anti gun proposal to inconvenience legitimate merchants and law abiding citizens.
Furthermore, established law will grandfather the store at it's existing location. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
