|
|
|
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:
AL: Want to buy a handgun? Lawmaker wants you to be 21, have a permit first
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"There has been a flurry of gun control measures coming out of Congress. The most recent targets handgun sales."
"Let's talk about that."
"What's the proposal?"
"Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, and three Connecticut lawmakers have introduced the Handgun Purchasers Licensing Act. The act would require people to obtain a license to purchase a handgun, something that's currently not required in Alabama. Rifles and other types of firearms would be exempt from the regulations."
"Specifically...."
"The act would establish a grant program through the Department of Justice that would encourage states to establish permit-to-purchase requirements for all handguns. ..." ... |
| Comment by:
lostone1413
(6/16/2015)
|
| Coming from the same Government that sees nothing wrong in letting BATF arm the gangs and drug cartels |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
