|
|
|
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:
WA: Gun Enthusiasts Launch Initiative Bid to Repeal Gun Safety Measure
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Firearms enthusiasts in Eastern Washington have launched an initiative campaign to repeal Initiative 1639, the measure passed by voters last November that raises the minimum age for purchase of semiautomatic assault rifles from 18 to 21 and imposes a 10-day waiting period. "I'm pretty certain they know it's going to be challenging. It's serious alright -- this sort of sprang up without warning," Dave Workman, a pro-gun rights writer who broke the story in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, wrote in an e-mail. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/29/2019)
|
"The tables have turned on gun safety in Washington."
It's not "gun safety", you idiot, it's GUN CONTROL. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
