|
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:
WA: Gun rights rally at Washington Senate gallery results in ban on firearms
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Blaming a rally by a group of legally armed Second Amendment advocates at the state Capitol in Olympia Thursday, Washington’s Lt. Governor ruled Friday that guns are now banned from the chamber.
The rally of some 200 gun rights activists on the steps of the Capitol building Jan. 15, was a continuation of the vocal opposition to the state’s background check ballot referendum, I-594, passed by voters last November. However, when the protest spilled over into the public gallery, there was an altercation between an open carrier and a state police lieutenant that ended with threats of removal and arrest. |
Comment by:
Gearmoe
(1/20/2015)
|
Again, it is fear, fear created by anti-gun groups which drive the undercurrent. The altercation likely is the result of fear on both sides. It also appears the actions of a minute minority has resulted in a damning of the majority, a move I do not nor should anyone respect. The banning was an emotional knee-jerk, hysteria. Law-makers who are unable to use pragmatism, logic and reason, removing emotional outbursts would best be left to some other job. |
|
|
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) |
|
|