|
|
|
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:
SC: State officials push for tighter gun laws
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In one month South Carolina lawmakers will be returning to the State House for the 2017 legislative session.
A push that failed this past year is back on the agenda again for next year: tighter gun control laws. The Senate and House have submitted its first set of pre-filed bills this week.
The bill aims to extend the background check waiting period from three days to 28 days while a separate bill wants to make it illegal to purchase a firearm until that background check is complete. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(12/15/2016)
|
The liberal answer to every "gun" problem: Infringe everyone else's rights.
Recent news reveals that the 9th Circus upheld CA's ridiculous 10-day waiting period law that doesn't exempt current gun owners and permit holders.
Come on, DONALD!
GET that originalist in there, and quickly. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
