|
|
|
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:
Cities Push to Destroy Seized guns -- Even in States Where it's Prohibited
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://loibertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Some cities around the country would like to destroy them, but can’t because more than a dozen states have passed laws forcing city governments to put the guns up for auction. Gun rights advocates helped get the state laws passed, arguing that destroying old guns is wasteful. But officials in cities like Tucson, Ariz., and Savannah, Ga., are pushing back against those laws, saying they need to destroy the guns to prevent more violence.
|
| Comment by:
dasing
(12/21/2016)
|
| "They need to melt these guns to provent violence"? What, are they selling these firearms to criminals? That is criminal in it self! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
