|
|
|
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:
FL: Florida bill seeks to repeal post-Parkland gun control measures
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
State Rep. Mike Hill, a Republican elected in November, filed the bill that would essentially repeal a number of measures passed into law in March 2018 as a part of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Act signed into law in March.
The new bill, HB 175, which would remove a mandatory waiting period to purchase firearms other than handguns and a provision which raised the age to purchase a rifle from 18 to 21.
It also would seek to repeal provisions that would allow law enforcement to seize firearms from people who may pose a danger to themselves or others, a measure sometimes referred to as a "red flag law." |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/10/2019)
|
| Hogg is a foul-mouthed mind-full-of-mush useful idiot. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
