|
|
|
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:
MI: Gabby Giffords joins debate over Michigan concealed carry bill, urges veto
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona is asking Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder to veto legislation that would overhaul the state’s concealed pistol permit application process, citing a provision that supporters say has been mischaracterized."
"The bill would 'weaken current protections for victims of domestic abuse and stalking' by allowing some individuals subject to a personal protection order to obtain a CPL, Giffords and a group of 21 other female leaders wrote in a letter to Snyder." ...
"Sponsoring Sen. Mike Green, R-Mayville, told MLive last week that the PPO language had been blown out of proportion and is 'one small portion of this huge changeover.' ..." ... |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(1/14/2015)
|
| Perhaps Ms. Giffords ought to be examining the reverse side of the coin she's peddling. What if voters were to demand all "pubic advocates" be "preemptively" subject to increased scrutiny of all of their activities for illegalities ? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
