|
|
|
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:
Police Seize More Than 450 Guns Under Florida’s New ‘Red-Flag’ Law
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Hundreds of gun owning Floridians have been ordered to surrender their firearms under a new ‘Red-Flag’ law signed by the governor just three weeks after a gunman entered Stoneman Douglas High School and opened fire. The Risk Protection Order, signed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, essentially strips a person’s second amendment rights if a task force team and a judge believe it is warranted – meaning if the person shows any signs of being a threat to themselves or others. |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/2/2019)
|
Illegal confiscation. Clearly unconstitutional.
I wonder how many of these are somewhat legitimate as opposed to someone just settling a score. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/2/2019)
|
| It cannot be said too many times: This stuff MUST get to the SCOTUS. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
