|
|
|
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:
AL: Alabama sheriffs question gun laws in wake of Rusty Houser shooting
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Alabama’s sheriffs are speaking out about what they call serious concerns with the state’s gun laws, according to Russell County Sheriff Heath Taylor.
Flanked at the Russell County Courthouse Tuesday morning by a dozen sheriffs from Morgan County in the north to Marengo County in the south, Taylor used recent Louisiana theater shooter Rusty Houser, a former Phenix City resident, as an example of how legislative changes to Alabama’s gun laws have handcuffed law enforcement’s ability to protect the public. |
| Comment by:
jac
(8/12/2015)
|
Where to start?
From the article it appears that Houser never had a concealed carry permit. So how is shall issue even a factor in this incident?
The reason that the legislature passed shall issue is because many sheriffs made it almost impossible for someone to get a permit. Had the issuing authorities in Alabama and many other states fairly issued carry permits, there would not have been a need or push for shall issue. I lived in PA, and can attest that carry permits were hard to get prior to shall issue.
|
| Comment by:
jac
(8/12/2015)
|
Con't
Houser would have been ineligible for a permit had the charges for domestic violence and arson resulted in a conviction. The article doesn't say why he was never convicted, but it would appear that someone in law enforcement or the judiciary dropped the ball.
Despite the title of the article, there is absolutely nothing in the article to suggest that more restrictive laws would have prevented this shooting.
Sounds like a bunch of anti-gun sheriffs with an axe to grind instead of any legitimate concerns. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? [...] The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!" —Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago (Chapter 1 "Arrest") |
|
|
