|
|
|
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: 'Red flag' laws could get Senate hearing
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A package of bills in the state house could enact so-called “red-flag laws” that allow law enforcement to take away firearms from people who could be a risk to themselves or others.
The legislation has been sitting in the senate since February but now bill sponsors say they have been promised a hearing.
Similar laws have or will soon be enacted in 18 other states including Illinois and Connecticut. The laws have been posited as way to reduce mass shootings, domestic violence and suicide.
According to a 2018 study, red flag laws are responsible for a 14 percent decline in firearm suicides in Connecticut and a 7 percent decline in Indiana.
|
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(10/27/2019)
|
| The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or " Property", without due process of law" The Bill of Rights has become binding on state governments as well as on the federal government. Just say "NO" to communism.. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
