|
|
|
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:
MO: Defining violent felonies can't go far enough
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Let's fix the problem by adding a list of offenses" is the mantra of Rep. Kevin Austin, R-Springfield.
Unfortunately, it appears that Mr. Austin's proposed legislation, HB 1220, would create new and unending problems when listing what is to be considered a "violent felon" under state law. There happens to be a perfectly good definition available from a federal court already. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(4/30/2015)
|
The disability of Second Amendment rights should hinge on one element, and one element only: convictions for crimes of violence.
Anything else isn't, well, "reasonable". |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. — Noah Webster in "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at p. 56 (New York, 1888). |
|
|
