|
|
|
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:
IL: Fall special session on assault weapons ban unlikely, but G-PAC demands action
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Gun Violence Prevention PAC says it appears there isn’t the political will to call a special session to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines before the November election. President and CEO Kathleen Sances said Friday there is a public outcry to pass those initiatives as soon as possible.
Bills are already filed in both chambers, but there clearly isn’t enough support. Sances explained her organization knows of 58 representatives and 17 senators willing to vote for the ban. These proposals would need support from 71 representatives and 36 senators in order to pass.
“Although the public is asking for these protections, we have lawmakers in districts who aren’t there yet,” Sances said. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(9/11/2022)
|
| No we are not asking for this!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
