|
|
|
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:
Gun Control Must Wait in Twin States
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Gun control advocates in both Vermont and New Hampshire must be discouraged at the failure of measures in their respective legislatures this winter that would have extended background checks, with some exceptions, to private firearm sales. Both bills were sensible attempts to keep guns out of the hands of people who are ineligible to purchase or possess them under federal law: violent felons, domestic abusers and mentally ill individuals who have been determined to pose a risk to themselves and others." ... |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(3/17/2015)
|
These people consistently ignore the Constitution as it confines their "great" ideas.
There is no, repeat NO delegated authority to regulate private transfers of personal property, so long as that property isn't contraband. The NICS checks pass constitutional muster only on commercial sales pursuant to Congress's commerce clause powers, and only to the extent that they do not materially burden the right for law-abiding people to acquire firearms.
|
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
