|
|
|
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:
When 'Stand Your Ground' Becomes a License to Kill
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Florida Gov. Rick Scott is expected to sign a bill making it tougher to prosecute people who claim they commit violence in self-defense, creating an opportunity for wrongdoers to unfairly take advantage of “stand your ground” defense laws. The bill would set a high hurdle for prosecutors, making them prove a negative that the assailant wasn’t standing his ground.
In the tumble-down effect that Republican-controlled states have on each other, there’s little doubt that similar legislation will surface in Missouri. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(6/5/2017)
|
| Whom ever wrote this piece is either an idiot or a tyrant, we realy don't need them in the Republic !!!! |
| Comment by:
dasing
(6/5/2017)
|
| Whom ever wrote this piece is either an idiot or a tyrant, we realy don't need them in the Republic !!!! |
| Comment by:
mickey
(6/5/2017)
|
Editorial commentary from St. Louis, Florida?
No?
Then why doesn't the St Louis Today editorial staff find something of local interest to write about? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
