|
|
|
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:
NC: Officials unsure why gun permits have doubled in Cumberland County
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gun permits have surged more than 90 percent in Cumberland County since 2014, with so many applications that the Sheriff's Office struggles to keep up.
The number of permit applications rose from 9,339 in 2014 to more than 17,888 last year, including permits to purchase pistols or concealed carry permits, according to Sheriff's Office lawyer Ronnie Mitchell.
Sheriff Moose Butler asked county commissioners on Thursday for funding for an additional employee to handle firearms permits, because his office doesn't have enough people to get fingerprints from applicants.
Ed.: Easy fix: repeal purchase permits and pass Constitutional Carry. |
| Comment by:
stevelync
(4/11/2016)
|
They don't know or they're not telling?
I think anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows why everyone is gunning up.
1) We have a govt that's acting as an enemy.
2) We have a govt that's letting an avowed enemy in through the front gates.
3) Said govt isn't interested in fixing the problem and protecting the public.
4) They want to apply the wrong solutions to the real threat by attacking the good citizenry.
5) On their best day, they are incapable of stopping determined attacks.
6) We are responsible for our own first response.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
