|
|
|
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:
CA Sen. Padilla cosponsors Background Check Expansion Act to Reduce Gun Violence
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) joined 43 Senators, led by Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), in introducing the Background Check Expansion Act to expand federal background checks to all gun sales, according to a press release from Padilla's office. Under current federal law, unlicensed or private sellers are not required to conduct a background check prior to transferring a firearm. 97 percent of Americans support comprehensive background checks. Research indicates that as many as a quarter of all gun sales in the United States may occur without a background check. U.S. Representative Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) introduced the companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. |
| Comment by:
jac
(3/5/2021)
|
As if criminals obtain their firearms through legal channels.
They steal them, use straw purchases, or buy them on the black market.
Gun control only affects law abiding citizens. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
