|
|
|
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:
MI: Editorial: Keep safety course rule for gun permits
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
Website: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2017/11/loaded_gun_magazine_found_in_g.html#incart_
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Rules to better ensure gun safety do not threaten the Second Amendment. Michigan has reasonable regulations in place to make sure those who are awarded concealed carry permits have a passing understanding of how to handle a handgun, and a familiarity with the state’s firearms laws.
Those rules should remain in place.
Republicans in the state Legislature want to scrap the training requirement of the CCW law, allowing those who want to carry a concealed weapon to do so without demonstrating a competency in the safe workings of a pistol or revolver.
That would be little different than dumping the test required before a driver’s license is issued. Both work to protect the operator and the public. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(11/4/2017)
|
| There should be NO permit...Driving a car is NOT a right enumerated in the constitution! Owning a firearm, and carrying it, is a right enumerated in the constitution!!!! |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/4/2017)
|
No. Is there a "safety course" for voting?
No? Then there can't be one for bearing arms. |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(11/5/2017)
|
| Maybe we should go back to testing competency before we let people vote too. They wouldn't like that much - half the country can't name their own representatives ! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
