|
|
|
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:
NY: Local gun enthusiasts: Ditch the SAFE Act
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Three area firearms business owners welcomed recent action in the state Legislature to repeal the SAFE Act in upstate New York.
Bills have been introduced in the Senate and Assembly, and the proposed legislation would leave the act intact for the New York City boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens and Staten Island.
The NY SAFE Act, signed into law by Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Jan. 15, 2013, amended provisions of state law in relation to firearms and ammunition, state officials said. |
| Comment by:
laker1
(3/3/2017)
|
Notice the label of a law is actually opposite of its application.
Affordable Care Act= Unaffordable
Safe Act= Unsafe
Dream Act=nightmare for taxpayers
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
