|
|
|
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:
University Of Houston LGBTQ Students No Longer Feel Safe On Campus
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
LBTQ+ students at the University of Houston claim they no longer feel safe and can no longer express themselves out of fear relating to the new ‘Open Campus Carry’ law. The law went into effect statewide on August 1. Formally known as the Senate Bill, which allows students at state universities in Texas who have licenses to carry handguns to bring those guns anywhere on the college campus, with the exception of “exclusion zones.”
|
| Comment by:
jac
(9/6/2016)
|
What a crock. This is nothing more than a bunch of flaming liberals sounding off.
They have a greater chance of being shot by a policeman or getting killed crossing the street than by being shot by someone licensed to carry a firearm.
Every time there is loosening of the concealed carry law, the kooks predicting doom and gloom come out of the woodwork. It hasn't happened anywhere else, and it won't happen in Texas. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
