|
|
|
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:
IN: Gun licensing bill again runs headlong into police opposition
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The thought of allowing anyone over 18 to possess a gun without a proper license doesn’t exactly sit well with local law enforcement.
“It’s a touchy, touchy thing,” said Sheriff Brad Burkhart.
The Indiana Senate in coming weeks likely will consider House Bill 1077, which would eliminate the need for handgun permits in Indiana. The bill passed out of the House last week on a largely party-line vote, 64-29. A similar proposal failed in the Senate last year as Republican leaders pointed to opposition from the Indiana State Police, the state police chiefs association and the Indiana Fraternal Order of Police. |
| Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(1/24/2022)
|
| These bAk ThUh bLoO types are a real problem among conservatives because usually the "blue" and more especially their professional lobbyists, are deeply anti liberty, pro drug war, and anti-constitutional. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
