|
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:
FL: Not a safety issue
Submitted by:
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association
Website: http://www.nysrpa.org
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
FULL TEXT BELOW:
OK, let's see if we have this straight. The National Rifle Association is arguing that carrying a gun makes you less safe when the public can see the record on your concealed-weapons permit.
Who other than Florida lawmakers would be suckers enough to buy that argument?
A bill by state Rep. Sandy Adams would deny all access to these records. This means the public would be prevented even from checking to see if their local government is following the law when it grants these permits. In doing so, it would treat gun owners differently than anyone else seeking licenses to drive a car.
If there is a burning need to protect gun owners' privacy, then lawmakers could exempt parts of the records, like addresses. But leave the names public. |
No
Comments found for this Newslink
|
|
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) |
|
|