|
|
|
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:
NH: Gun right denied: A cautionary tale about licensing
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Supreme Court noted that carrying a firearm is a civil right, as established in two separate U.S. Supreme Court rulings. People who have had that right revoked because of a past conviction have to go through legal hurdles to get it back. Citizens who have never been convicted of anything should not be subjected to similar processes.
As Senate Bill 116 would ensure, they should be able to carry concealed without having to ask permission from the government first.
|
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(2/26/2015)
|
| I guess that means Emily will be far more trained than the average NYPD cop ! And probably the average D.C. cop, too ! (But SFAIK, the metro powers that be haven't published the firearms training/practice/recurrent hours required of our nation's capitol's finest. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
