|
|
|
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:
OK: Department Of Human Services Amends Gun Policy
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit that alleged the Oklahoma Department of Human Services violated foster parents' right to bear arms.
The lawsuit was filed after the department asked parents to sign a written agreement requiring weapons to be locked up.
The suit argued that the department's agreement obligated foster parents to keep their firearms locked up, to only carry their weapons around a child if it was required by their employer and to ensure weapons in automobiles were unloaded, disabled and locked in a container. |
| Comment by:
-none-
(5/18/2017)
|
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter265/Section18
"Whoever, being armed with a firearm, shotgun, rifle, machine gun or assault weapon"... |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
