|
|
|
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:
NM: Gun Background-Check Bill Advances
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A legislative proposal in New Mexico to require background checks on nearly all private firearms sales won its first committee endorsement Tuesday while igniting an impassioned public debate, involving representatives for the National Rifle Association and a rival national gun-safety organization. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(2/1/2017)
|
| Only way it has a chance to work is to keep a list of gun owners. Once there's a list, it will become public. Once public gun owners will become targets of home invasions. Once home invasions become widespread, further restrictions on gun owners become necessary. Don't allow this Trojan Horse in any state. Only unrest, needless expense, and deaths can result. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
