|
|
|
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:
VA: Richmond City Council Votes to Revisit Mayor's Gun-Control Measure
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Richmond City Council voted to revisit Mayor Levar Stoney’s proposal of a new gun-control measure during a special meeting in September. Stoney made his position clear on Thursday by saying guns shouldn’t be allowed at or near public events and said he’s disappointed in City Council. Stoney proposed this ordinance less than two weeks ago and says even this week there was proof it’s needed. The mayor citing rallies such as the gun rights rally on Tuesday, where people with guns marched down city streets. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/21/2020)
|
'Said it before and I'll say it again:
Your comfort level cannot and does not determine the otherwise lawful exercise of my fundamental rights. |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(8/21/2020)
|
| And did those people marching while armed do any rioting or looting ? Burn any police cars, beak any windows ? Nope. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
