|
|
|
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: City of Edmonds is latest to consider gun safety measures
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The proposed legislation would require guns to be locked up in homes.
And it's a topic of security that is circulating round and round in communities throughout our region.
In Seattle, gun owners could also be forced to pay up to $10,000 in fines if their firearms aren't kept in safes. That's according to Mayor Jenny Durkan's "Safe Storage" legislation that she handed to the City Council recently.
"This is not an anti-gun measure. This is a gun safety measure and I believe strongly in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's right to bear arms but any responsible gun owner knows they should keep their weapon locked," Durkan said. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/5/2018)
|
"I believe in people's right to bear arms but ..."
Yes, well, there's always that "but", isn't there?
Question: How can you bear arms that are locked up?
Non sequitur. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
