|
|
|
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:
PA: NRA lawsuit against City of Lancaster enabled by bad lawmaking in Harrisburg
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Pennsylvania Act 192 went into effect Jan. 5. It enables anyone or any organization “adversely affected” by a local gun ordinance to sue the municipality; legal standing is afforded even if the plaintiff doesn’t reside in the municipality. The National Rifle Association, a gun rights group based in Virginia, is suing Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and the City of Lancaster — Lancaster over its 2009 ordinance that requires gun owners to report lost or stolen guns to the police. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(1/19/2015)
|
Nothing like a simplistic argument fueled by complex motives ! One might opine dragging out the 'NRA straw man' never seems to grow old with hoplophobes. Anti-gun types see creating a "patchwork quilt" of conflicting gun laws serves their prohibition cause.
PA gun owners, (supported by the NRA, among others) only want consistent gun law throughout the state. This current anti-gun mania harkens back to PA's "speed trap" era where municipalities prey upon transient motorists. Law-abiding gun owners want uniform gun laws they can comply with in the ordinary course of their affairs without being made prey to criminals. Criminals, of course, don't give a da*n about any municipality's gun laws; or any others, FTM. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
