|
|
|
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:
OH: A rare agreement with the anti-gun folks
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Having said all that, I now have to admit that I’ve recently signed on with the anti-gunners.
On one issue, at least.
Working its way through the Ohio House is a bill, sponsored by a couple of downstate Republicans – Tom Brinkman of the Cincinnati area and Ron Hood of Ashville – and supported by 27 other GOP legislators, that would end the license requirement for people wishing to legally carry a concealed weapon.
|
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(4/5/2019)
|
| Being "Permitted," charged a license fee for, and taxed by the State, in order to exercise a Freedom granted by the Federal Constitution, somehow sounds wrong. Trying to justify the inept ability to control criminals, by holding the rights of the law abiding hostage, sounds criminal in itself... |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
