|
|
|
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:
CT: Tighter Gun Laws on Table
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The legislature’s Judiciary Committee spent 14 hours Monday hearing comments on a series of gun-related bills that among them would require people to show their open-carry permits, prohibit so-called “ghost guns,” and add criminal penalties to existing laws regarding safe storage of firearms.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/14/2019)
|
"What it will do is require a very small degree of diligence on the part of gun owners to ensure that they do not create a situation where someone may die due to their carelessness. What it will do is hold them criminally liable if they do not properly and safely store their firearms."
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why is nobody, NOBODY mentioning this, EVER?
“Held:
“3) …the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” - D.C. v. Heller (2008) |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/14/2019)
|
"What it will do is require a very small degree of diligence on the part of gun owners to ensure that they do not create a situation where someone may die due to their carelessness. What it will do is hold them criminally liable if they do not properly and safely store their firearms."
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why is nobody, NOBODY mentioning this, EVER?
“Held:
“3) …the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” - D.C. v. Heller (2008) |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
