|
|
|
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:
Pelosi Announces Legislation to Expand Background Checks on Guns
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
On the eighth anniversary of the shooting of former Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democrats Tuesday announced a bill to expand background checks for sales and transfers of firearms. The legislation marks one of Pelosi’s first acts since retaking the role of House Speaker after Democrats took back control of the lower chamber of Congress in the midterm elections. Many Democrats promised swift action on gun control during last year’s campaign season. |
| Comment by:
jac
(1/9/2019)
|
Hopefully the Senate will hold out on these threats against the second amendment.
If passed the next step will be gun registration because background checks for private sales won't work unless the guns are registered. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(1/9/2019)
|
| If you take an oath in a courtroom and lie...you know what happens. "Lying" or knowingly "Breaking" that "Oath of Office" should be considered more severe than being in a courtroom and lying. Persons of little character, or honor disobey their oath. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/9/2019)
|
Congress has the authority to mandate background checks at retail pursuant to its commerce clause powers.
Private sales are not commerce, and there is no delegated power to regulate them.
Why is nobody shouting this out loud, day after day? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
