|
|
|
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:
WA: Substitute Version of Gun Control Bill Passes House Committee
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee passed Substitute House Bill 1122 out of committee on a 7-6 vote. This bill, which would require gun owners to lock up their firearms or potentially face criminal charges, will now head to the House floor to await full consideration. It is critical you contact your state Representative and urge them to OPPOSE the Substitute for House Bill 1122!
The Substitute for House Bill 1122 would require the locking up of one’s firearms or else they would potentially face reckless endangerment charges. This intrusive government legislation invades people’s homes and forces them to render their firearms useless in a self-defense situation by locking them up. |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(1/20/2018)
|
| My house is locked. That should be enough for firearms stored there. Same for my car when I'm forced by some inane, unconstitutional law to set my firearms aside when visiting certain "restricted" areas. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
