|
|
|
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:
WI: Wisconsin's US Concealed Carry Association Courts NRA Members With Family Focus
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Zee Martín bought her first firearm — a shotgun — in the late 1970s after her home near Springfield, Missouri was burglarized. Over the years, she began buying more firearms, eventually collecting handguns and participating in gun competitions. In fact, that's how she met her second husband. Martín has been a member of the NRA for decades. A little over a year ago, she joined another group — the United States Concealed Carry Association. The West Bend, Wisconsin-based group offers a similar product as the NRA, but the message is very different. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/25/2019)
|
Bad link.
https://www.wpr.org/wisconsins-us-concealed-carry-association-courts-nra-members-family-focus |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
