|
|
|
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 Control Bills on Senate Floor
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Substitute to Senate Bill 5062, sponsored by Senator Patty Kuderer (D-48), was filed at the request of Attorney General Bob Ferguson. It would ban the possession of ammunition magazines with a capacity greater than 10, encompassing most standard capacity magazines commonly used by law-abiding citizens, such as with handguns popular for self-defense. Those who own non-compliant magazines prior to the ban would only be allowed to possess them on their own property and in other limited instances such as at licensed shooting ranges and nationally sanctioned sport shooting events. These magazines would have to be transported unloaded and locked separately from firearms and stored at home locked, making them unavailable for self-defense. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(2/28/2019)
|
Do you remember the Oath of Office? Americans expect unwavering loyalty to that commitment.
Serve.. Not Rule.. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
