|
|
|
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:
TX: Prospects for "red flag" gun law in Texas plummet as Abbott sees "coalescence" against it
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The chances of Texas passing a so-called "red flag" law after the Santa Fe school shooting continued to drop Friday as Gov. Greg Abbott said he saw a "coalescence" against the proposal.
As part of his school safety plan released after the May 18 massacre, the Republican governor asked the Legislature to consider such a law, which would allow courts to order the seizure or surrender of guns from people who are deemed an imminent threat by a judge. But even then, Abbott's request for lawmakers to study the proposal drew the ire of some Second Amendment hardliners in the governor's party, and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick declared Tuesday that he has never supported a "red flag" law and suggested it would be dead on arrival in the Senate. |
| Comment by:
mickey
(7/28/2018)
|
| "You don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows" --- You just need to look at the direction Greg Abbott is pointing this week. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
