|
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:
FL: Planning Commission splits 4-3 on range permit
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Planning commissioners split 4-3 Wednesday over the approval of a proposed firearms training facility near Frostproof.
Cary Scott and Garrett Anderson of Avon Park, who proposed the range on a 40-acre former clay pit off J Zoffay Road, argued the project could boost the area's economy by turning Polk into a center for firearms training facilities.
Lake Wales lawyer Bart Allen, who represented a number of local grove owners, and others questioned whether a facility would be compatible with current citrus operations and future residential development in the area.
Anderson said they are planning to appeal Wednesday's vote to the County Commission. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/8/2015)
|
"Gunfire frightens workers," he said, arguing that would interfere with harvesting.
Immaterial. Cavalry horses had to be enured to gunfire, and had that training not been successful, there would have been no cavalry.
Some initial discomfort might be expected, but it should not impede free enterprise. |
|
|
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) |
|
|