|
|
|
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:
NE: Hastings City Council revisits weapons ordinance
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
After several weeks of work, the Hastings City Council will decide on a new gun law for the city on Monday.
Staffers have drafted an ordinance which re-works a proposal that was tabled in January.
"The idea is to be as minimalistic as we can as far as affected people's rights under the second amendment, but yet you balance that with the protection of the public who might be in those places, and that includes small children as well,” Hastings City Attorney Dave Ptak said.
The new proposal prohibits people with so-called "open carry" weapons from city buildings and parks, as was the law on the books previously. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(2/23/2019)
|
| So what was discussed about laws that criminals will follow?....Cricket sounds... |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
