|
|
|
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:
Schumer Pushes Bill Regulating Body Armor for Civilians
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer says he wants to pass a law regulating advanced gear for civilians, which could make it harder to buy body armor in the future. Specifically, Schumer’s bill instructs the FBI to regulate body armor sales restricting them from people without an occupational purpose. The senator argues that too often, those with evil intent are buying body armor and that body armor has become part of a “checklist” for copycat killers.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/20/2019)
|
| Who the EFF does this jackwagon think he is? |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(8/20/2019)
|
Someone who thinks the way to solve problems is to crush our rights and make us as vulnerable as possible, so the high & mighty need not fear us as the rule us.
We're only worthless peons, you know. |
| Comment by:
RichardJCoon
(8/20/2019)
|
| I could be wrong (I have been before), but I think it's relatively rare for a shooter to have body armor. Besides Dayton, when else has this happened? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
