|
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:
WA: Rifle Ban Will Never Happen, Senatorial Candidate Says
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The candidate trying to unseat Sen. Patty Murray says a total rifle ban will not happen. Chris Vance, former chairman of the Washington State Republican Party, says banning semi-automatic rifles would be unconstitutional. “Republicans and Democrats need to work together to find a compromise on guns,” Vance said during the first debate with Murray on Sunday. “I’ll work with Republicans and Democrats to strengthen background check system. That is legislation that will actually pass. A ban on rifles is not going to pass.” |
Comment by:
jughead
(10/18/2016)
|
the antis always want to compromise give them a little and next year they want more. as far as this old man believes NO MORE we always lose. |
Comment by:
mickey
(10/18/2016)
|
The background check system needs to be STRONGER? In Washington? According to a Republican? |
|
|
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) |
|
|