|
|
|
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:
NM: Residents get update on gun bill legislation
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A bill requiring background checks for the sale of guns at gunshows and over the internet may get a hearing in 2019, according to gun control advocates who spoke at a Voices of Los Alamos meeting Monday night.
Members of a group affiliated with Everytown, called Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, were there, along with Taryn Nix, a political advisor to State Rep. Stephanie Garcia Richard.
Moms Demand Action representatives urged the audience to get involved, to meet with their legislators about the bill and other gun control related issues. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(9/29/2017)
|
| The fed already has dealers running background checks at gun shows and any dealer on the internet has to send the firearm to a local dealer to process, for the buyer!!!! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
