|
|
|
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:
OK: As New Gun Law Approaches, Seizures Of Firearms In Largest Cities Keep Rising
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The number of illegally used or owned guns taken off the streets in Oklahoma’s two most populous cities continues to increase. Police say they are watching to see of the new permitless-carry law will result in higher gun seizures. The number of illegally used or owned guns taken off the streets in Oklahoma’s two most populous cities continues to be on the rise. Data from the Oklahoma City and Tulsa police departments show gun seizures are up in both cities as officials say a mix of added crime-fighting enforcement measures and the ever-growing number of guns, owned legally or illegally by Oklahomans, is contributing to the increase.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/16/2019)
|
"Adair said it’s possible the new law, which allows Oklahomans over 21 to carry a gun without a permit, could embolden those who are barred from legally owning any gun, such as most ex-felons, to flaunt Oklahoma’s gun restrictions."
There is no evidence to back such a prognostication, and it even flies in the face of simple logic.
"Most ex-felons" who are inclined to carry a gun are doing so already, and the new law will change nothing in that regard. Legalizing law-abiding citizens carrying without a permit cannot affect those who are already carrying illegally, prima facie.
Honestly, the way these people think is befuddling. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
