|
|
|
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:
MT: Governor says guns in restaurants that serve alcohol are a bad idea
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Montana's governor has sent a bill back to lawmakers that would have allowed people carry concealed weapons in restaurants that sell alcohol, saying weapons and intoxicating beverages don't mix.
In an amendatory veto Friday, the governor wrote that "Montanans recognize that guns and alcohol in public places don't mix."
He said the bill, House Bill 494, carried by Rep. Seth Berglee, R-Joliet, would create uncertainty. The bill would have let a person with a valid permit to carry a concealed weapon to bring a concealed gun into any restaurant where alcohol is not the chief item for sale. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(4/15/2017)
|
| Hey, gov, look around you. There are other states who do have that law , and NO WILD WEST! |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(4/15/2017)
|
| Governor is not basing his decision in fact. No problems in states that allow this. What's humorous is many states do allow off duty LEO and court officers to do so - WHILE DRINKING. |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(4/15/2017)
|
| Governor is not basing his decision in fact. No problems in states that allow this. What's humorous is many states do allow off duty LEO and court officers to do so - WHILE DRINKING. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/16/2017)
|
| The governor's opinion is unsupported by evidence. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
