|
|
|
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:
Below the Radar: The School Violence Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2019
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
There are many ways legislation can affect our Second Amendment rights. Some of the effects are very direct – bans on modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms being one of the most prominent proposals out there. But others will not directly touch on gun laws at all.
One of the latter bills is HR 3665, the School Violence Prevention and Mitigation Act of 2019, introduced by Representative Roger Williams (R-TX). This bill doesn’t change gun laws one way or another, but Second Amendment supporters should not just follow the progress of this bill but support its passage, even though the lead co-sponsor has a poor track record on Second Amendment rights. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/7/2020)
|
| "The school shootings that don’t happen will never be used to attack our rights." - 'Makes perfect sense. (I'm respectfully skeptical about Hutchison given his mealy-mouth op-ed history, but he's right on this one.) |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
