|
|
|
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:
TN: What Tennessee’s New Permitless Carry Law Means For Black Gun Owners
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
When it comes to gun ownership, Aqil Qadir knows exactly what he’s talking about.
He’s a former New York police officer, an NRA-certified firearms instructor and heads his own self-defense training company.
But despite taking pride in being able to take people through Tennessee’s handgun carry permit course, he’s not upset to see the classroom requirement eliminated.
“The handgun permit class was never adequate training anyway,” he says. “And anybody who does this for a living will tell you that.” |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/27/2021)
|
Until the Overton Window on police's perception of blacks and guns shifts in a positive direction, this is an unfortunate but critical necessity.
I applaud their approach, and sincerely hope that it gains continued success. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
