|
|
|
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:
TN: TN lawmakers weigh numerous firearm bills
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Tennessee lawmakers are focused on gun legislation and Second Amendment rights on Capitol Hill this week."
"Permit holders are one step closer to bringing guns into certain city parks. A House committee approved a bill that stops local governments from banning handguns at certain places, including playgrounds, parks and athletic fields. The Senate Judiciary committee also passed a similar version Tuesday evening." ... |
| Comment by:
jughead
(3/11/2015)
|
| from what i hear though the gov. has the key people in his pocket to slide them all into one committee or another to keep them from coming to a vote and let them die. i really think bloomberge has our gov in his pocket. he was a member until he decided to run for gov. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(3/11/2015)
|
"We allow local governments who are closer to the populations, closer to the schools and parks in questions to make individualized decisions about those," said Sen. Jeff Yarbro, D-Nashville.
Then, you admit violating the Constitution, Senator.....?
How interesting. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
