|
|
|
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:
SD: Opposition to ‘Stand Your Ground’: What’s really in HB 1212
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The fate of a controversial ‘stand your ground’ measure is now in the hands of South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem after House Bill 1212 cleared the Senate on Monday. The bill, which was killed in the Senate Judiciary committee on March 4, was recovered via the ‘smoke out’ rule just hours later. The Senate voted 21-14 in favor of approving the bill.
...
In response to the question, Noem’s director of communications, Ian Fury, says, “Governor Noem supports that legislation.” |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/11/2021)
|
"Islam also says that the bill offers too much latitude for the average citizen to decide for themselves if deadly force should be used."
???!!! Eau, PEDDISH the THAWGHT.
"The bill states that a person would have the right to use deadly force if they have “reasonable fear” of 'imminent death' or 'great bodily injury.' Section 5 clarifies that a person is presumed to have held 'reasonable fear' if the person they kill was in the process of unlawfully entering a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, was attempting to remove someone from a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if the person using deadly force believes that un unlawful entry or forcible act was occurring[.]"
*ahek, mutter, blubber* PREPOSTEROUS!!! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
