|
|
|
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:
‘It’s A Disaster’: Joe Biden’s Gun Plan Could Bankrupt The Firearms Industry, Advocates Say
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
President-elect Joe Biden’s gun control plan, which in part seeks to remove liability protections on firearm manufacturers and dealers, could bankrupt major players in the weapons industry, two advocates said. The former vice president’s “Plan To End Our Gun Violence Epidemic” seeks to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act, which affords firearms dealers and manufacturers legal protection against lawsuits that may result from the misuse of weapons or ammunition sold to the public. Such a measure would effectively leave dealers and sellers vulnerable to wrongful death and injury lawsuits, senior vice president of the Gun Owners of America Erich Pratt told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
|
| Comment by:
mickey
(11/25/2020)
|
| You say disaster, they say 'campaign promise kept'. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
