|
|
|
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: Pavlov Defends Bills Allowing Concealed Guns in Schools
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
State Sen. Phil Pavlov, R-St. Clair Township, said having gun safety zones where "responsible, law-abiding gun owners" with concealed pistol licenses are prohibited from carrying concealed pistols "creates tragedy."
On Wednesday, the state Senate passed a package of three bills allowing people with an enhanced concealed pistol license to carry their guns in places such as churches, schools, stadiums, bars and other places currently designated as safe zones.
"Since 1950, 98% of the mass shootings have taken place in gun-free zones," Pavlov said.
Current state law prohibits concealed carry in gun safe zones; courts have ruled, however, that people can open carry guns in such places under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/13/2017)
|
"We do not feel that more guns in schools will be the answer to violence in schools or anywhere else," he said.
Clue: What you 'feel' has nothing to do with natural law, the Constitution or reality.
Hence, it should have no effect on any law concerning RKBA in any venue. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
