|
|
|
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:
Police Seize More Than 450 Guns Under Florida’s New ‘Red-Flag’ Law
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Hundreds of gun owning Floridians have been ordered to surrender their firearms under a new ‘Red-Flag’ law signed by the governor just three weeks after a gunman entered Stoneman Douglas High School and opened fire. The Risk Protection Order, signed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, essentially strips a person’s second amendment rights if a task force team and a judge believe it is warranted – meaning if the person shows any signs of being a threat to themselves or others. |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/2/2019)
|
Illegal confiscation. Clearly unconstitutional.
I wonder how many of these are somewhat legitimate as opposed to someone just settling a score. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/2/2019)
|
| It cannot be said too many times: This stuff MUST get to the SCOTUS. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
