|
|
|
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:
WA: Will Washington's new assault weapons ban hold up in court? Gov. Inslee thinks 'it should survive'
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
While discussing the ban with KUOW, Gov. Inslee says he's confident the legislation "should" hold up in court.
“I think it should survive because this is a very common sense measure," Inslee said, commenting on potential Second Amendment challenges. "I don’t believe that anyone believes that weapons of war are protected by the Second Amendment. And these particular kinds of weapons, that’s their only real reason, is mass murder. There is really no reason for these particular weapons, other than that. This bill does not take away all the right to firearms. It doesn’t prevent people from having firearms to protect their personal space and home. |
| Comment by:
jimobxpelham
(4/22/2023)
|
| THIS IS SIMPLE, CRIMINALS WHO USE A GUN GET LIFE IN PRISON, NO PAROL. KILL SOME ONE WITH A GUN, AUTOMATIC DEATH PENALTY. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
