|
|
|
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:
GA: Ga. lawmakers head home, leaving behind some controversy
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Supporters said House Bill 859 is a campus safety measure that gives students a means of self defense.
State Rep. Heath Clark, R-Warner Robins, called it a piece of common sense legislation.
The measure would not apply to most typical undergraduates. Concealed carry licenses are for people 21 and older or those in the military.
But detractors, including leaders of the state's university system, say they do not want guns on campus. During debate on the bill this year, state Rep. Patty James Bentley, D-Butler, said students with guns might not use them for self defense, but rather against other students.
Some lobby groups, such as Moms Demand Action, are asking Deal to veto the bill. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(3/26/2016)
|
| My kid can give their life fighting in the military for our Bill of Rights, but shouldn't have those rights if he/she walks onto a campus? Commonsense??? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
