|
|
|
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:
AZ: Arizona bill would restrict gun sales to licensed dealers
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A group of Arizona Democrats have sponsored a bill that would ban the sale or transfer of a firearm unless the buyer or seller is a licensed dealer.
The proposed legislation would allow a licensed firearms dealer to facilitate the sale of a gun between two private citizens if the dealer conducts a background check on both the buyer and the seller.
"I am a firm believer that law-abiding citizens should be able to own the weapons that they choose," Arizona Rep. Randall Friese said. "What I am trying to do is put another check in the system to be sure that the person who is getting the weapon isn't going to misuse it." |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(1/22/2015)
|
| All together now.... "PRIOR RESTRAINT". |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
