|
|
|
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:
AK: A Commonsense Gun Law Just Stalled in The Alaska Legislature. That’s as Foolish as Kicking a Moose.
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Can we just agree that people who kick moose should pack all their stuff and move to Arkansas? That's another state that starts with an "A." Seriously. Who in their right mind kicks a moose?
This week a commonsense gun law stalled in the halls of Juneau because there are a few lawmakers who are afraid of the NRA.
What has been called a "red flag" law has been introduced. Here's what a red flag law is — it is sometimes called an extreme risk protection order law. It allows a judge to issue an order that enables law enforcement to confiscate guns from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others.
We have to do more to protect each other. To the Legislature, do your job.
|
| Comment by:
jac
(4/9/2018)
|
My wife would use this to cause me aggravation. It would probably take me a year to get my guns back, even though I served in the military and do not have any criminal record.
Notice how they call every gun law common sense as if anyone that would oppose it is stupid.
What is stupid is that liberals actually believe that these laws will do any good.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
