|
|
|
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:
MI: Detroit City Council Votes in Favor of Placing Additional Tax on Ammunition
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Detroit City Council has voted in favor of placing an additional tax on bullets.
“This is the city of Detroit, we continue to beat Los Angeles every year with the number of homicides, in senseless gun violence,” said Wayne County Commissioner Reggie Davis.
Davis calls his resolution "the bullet bill." The resolution requires a mental health background on purchasers of ammunition in Wayne County, and also limits the purchase of bullets in the county. It also puts a tax on the sales of bullets.
“It has to stop somewhere and I feel this is a means to an end and that’s what this whole bullet bill agenda is all about," Davis said, adding that he knows all too well about gun violence.
|
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(11/21/2018)
|
| Let me guess.. Law abiding citizens needs to be punished again for the actions of criminals. Sounds more like legislated theft to me. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/21/2018)
|
| No-no Loosie you cehn't. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
