|
|
|
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:
NY: New York Reveals the Scam Behind Firearms Waiting Periods
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Among the many anti-Second Amendment bills being considered in New York is S.2374/A.2690. Behind that combination of two letters and eight numbers is a very insidious way of infringing your right to keep and bear arms. Essentially, it can impose a waiting period of up to 30 days. These bills, if they pass the state legislature, will likely be signed by Andrew Cuomo.
If you want a prime example of a gun control law that has been overtaken by technology, the waiting period is it.
These days, it shouldn’t be hard to run a background check and have the answer in minutes. The National Instant Check System should be instant, but it isn’t – and that should be fixed. So, what is the big deal? |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(2/23/2019)
|
Depriving law abiding citizens of their Constitutional Rights is not just a scam. TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 says that is a Federal Crime.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
