|
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:
SC: After Dylann Roof, S.C. could loosen gun laws
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The bills were crafted to not curtail the rights of legal, responsible gun owners, only to make it harder for those who shouldn’t possess such weapons. But they did not meet the General Assembly’s annual crossover deadline, meaning no new law is possible this session. Besides, Gov. Henry McMaster had not signaled whether he would sign it.
What did make it in time to be considered for passage this year? A bill that would make it legal for residents to carry guns – concealed or openly – without a permit or training. It passed the House and is being considered in the Senate this week. McMaster said he would sign it if it reaches his desk. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/18/2017)
|
And the problem is.....? |
|
|
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) |
|
|