|
|
|
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:
State Lawmakers Need to Follow Walmart When it Comes to Guns
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
It’s appalling that big-box stores and outdoor retailers are imposing more stringent rules on gun sales than Washington’s Democratic-controlled state Legislature. But that is exactly what is happening as state lawmakers tiptoe away from minimal gun-control measures in the final days of their 60-day session in Olympia. Since the Feb. 14 school shooting that claimed 17 lives in Parkland, Florida, Walmart has announced it will no longer sell guns to anyone under 21. Kroger, L.L. Bean and Dick’s Sporting Goods have done the same. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/7/2018)
|
Memo to dimwitted editor:
The Constitution doesn't bind Walmart, but it DOES bind federal and state government.
Idiot. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(3/7/2018)
|
| Yah, read about the law suit starting for age discrimination. I wonder if we can make that into class action!! |
| Comment by:
hisself
(3/7/2018)
|
A lawsuit in Oregon, and now another one in Michigan.
It is oddf that these companies' lawyers did not research to see which states banned age discrimination in businesses open to the public. There are at least 17, which opens these stores to lawsuits in all of them. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
