|
|
|
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:
MA: Your Urgent Action Needed to Oppose the Ivory Ban Legislation!
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Last October, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing to discuss House Bill 1275, legislation to ban the intrastate trade in legal ivory and ivory products. Nearly 100 individuals ranging from antique dealers, firearm collectors and musicians attended the hearing to voice their opposition to this measure. However, now there are closed door discussions taking place to amend this legislation with no public input and the Committee reporting date for the legislation has been extended to Monday, May 2, 2016. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(3/25/2016)
|
| Another example of legislative ignorance ! Ivory, ( from sources as disparate as terrestrial animals to pelagic ) was long a source of ornamentation for hand-crafted products ranging from firearms to furniture to personal care utensils, to musical instruments. Most of these are "durable" hence continue to exist and bad valued despite current phobias. Are we to destroy these art treasures to satisfy some current fad espoused by the historically and culturally ignorant ? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
