|
|
|
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:
IN: Police groups argue against dropping state gun permit requirement
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Several police organizations are arguing against a proposal that would have Indiana join a dozen other states that don't require a license to carry a handgun in public.
A legislative committee met Tuesday to begin reviewing the proposal that has failed the last two years in the Republican-dominated Legislature but could become a contentious topic during next year's session.
Law enforcement officials told the panel that they supported the current law, under which Indiana State Police check people who want to legally carry a gun. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/24/2017)
|
Who cares WHAT they think?
Their argument is devoid of any logical substantiation. The claim that requiring permits keeps criminals and loonies from carrying, which they are ALREADY doing with the permit law in place, is demonstrably false.
Since it would be foolish to assume that they are THAT stupid, one must then move on to the next consideration of their motivation.
Maintenance of their power. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
