|
|
|
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:
Carolyn Maloney unveils gun safety legislation package
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Maloney introduced the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act, which would make gun trafficking a felony and make straw purchasing — when someone buys a gun for another person who is ineligible — a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor.
She also introduced the Handgun Trigger Safety Act, which would incentivize the development of “smart-gun technology” that would only allow authorized gun owners to fire a gun. In addition, Maloney introduced the Firearm Risks Protection Act, which would require gun owners to purchase liability insurance.
The New York Democrat also unveiled the Gunshow Loop Hole Act to require people who buy guns at gun shows to undergo background checks. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/11/2021)
|
“The reality of gun violence and gun safety is not a second amendment conversation,” Guttenberg said. “It is not, it is a public health conversation.”
You can't side-step the Constitution by changing the subject. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
