|
|
|
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:
MN: Permit to carry, 'Stand Your Ground' bills raising concerns at Capitol
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Two gun bills making their way through the Minnesota legislature are raising concerns among some in the law and law enforcement community.
One of the bills would do away with permit to carry. The other would redefine self-defense laws. Nearly every person who testified for over two hours on Wednesday about the two gun bills was against them, including the police chiefs association and the county attorneys association.
Both the committee room and the overflow room a floor above were filled to capacity with both passionate opponents and power supporters. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/9/2017)
|
“If this bill passes, people who've never passed a criminal background check and never learned how to handle a gun safely would be able to carry one in public,” Olson said.
This ridiculous statement demonstrates the effectiveness of brainwashing.
How anybody could not possibly see the holes in this 'logic' is befuddling.
1) Criminals don't GAF about laws - ANY laws.
2) 99% of the people to whom he refers are average Joes just like him, so to extrapolate his 'logic', he wouldn't even trust himself without a permit and/or training.
Sad. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
