|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(8/18/2016)
|
| Training is great, yet there are considerations of mandating such. Why can't the permit providers give a big discount for your license to carry, when you show proof of a credible training course? |
| Comment by:
mzanghetti
(8/18/2016)
|
| I like the idea of a permit discount if you get training, but I have another question, what business is it of the Catholic Church to actively campaign against a particular piece of legislation? They can preach in their churches and I have no problem with them laying out church teaching but you can expand just war theory to actually support the idea of self defense. I think they were wrong to come out in support of not overriding the Governors veto. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
