|
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:
AR: New Senate Bill Aims to Temporarily Take Guns from People Considered "Extreme Risk"
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Earlier this month, Courtney Willie tried to break up with 22-year-old Dekota Harvey. "I didn't want the abuse," Willie said. "The mental instability of him. And I didn't want him continuing the abuse of my friends as well." Harvey shot Willie in the leg and shot and killed Willie's new girlfriend, 20-year-old Elizabeth "Alexis" Dawson. Willie said she wasn't surprised by Harvey's actions because he'd had suicidal thoughts and access to guns. The new bill would aim to prevent these incidents.
|
Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/27/2019)
|
"They're laws that when done properly, balance a gun owners rights with the need to protect people and the public," said bill sponsor, Democratic senator of District 4, Greg Leding.
"We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government ... the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. . . The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people[.]" - D.C. v. Heller (2008)
Probable cause can only issue based upon a CRIME having been committed. These laws obviate that principle. |
|
|
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) |
|
|