|
|
|
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:
CO: "Forever changed:" Parents say son faced felony charge for toy gun
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Colorado Springs parents are speaking out after they say their 10-year-old son was arrested because he and his friend were pointing toy weapons at passing cars in a neighborhood.
Christopher and Stefanie Carpenter are a military family living on base at Fort Carson. The Carpenters have three children, one of whom is Gavin. Last summer on July 24, the Carpenters said Gavin went to a friend's house for a sleepover. Gavin was first at the friend's grandparent's home before the kids were going to head to the friend's actual home. However, they never made it there.
|
| Comment by:
stevelync
(3/1/2020)
|
Kolorado has been becoming increasingly Marxist since Kommiefornians have been invading bringing their politics with them.
They've schitt their nests in Kommiefornia making it unlivable and then they migrate elsewhere and proceed to do the same. I've dropped all pretenses of being civil with any of them. The last thing I want to do is make any of the bastids feel welcome. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
