|
|
|
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:
Should Ammunition Buyers Face Background Checks? California's Voters Will Decide
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
With gun control efforts stalled in Congress and in many statehouses, advocates are forging another path forward: They're going straight to the ballot box. Voters in four states will weigh gun control initiatives Nov. 8 ballot: Maine, Nevada, Washington and California. In Nevada and Maine, voters are being asked whether to strengthen background check requirements for gun sales. Washington State voters already did that; now they're considering whether to allow a court to take guns away from potentially dangerous people.
|
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(10/26/2016)
|
| Every day I'm thankful to have exited that state 18 months ago. |
| Comment by:
GR8dowbay
(10/27/2016)
|
** THERE ARE... beleive it r not... TONS of CA. GUN OWNERS who actually SUPPORT this Bill!! ...think its a "really good idea"...
For years I've said: KALIFORNIANS arent just STUPID - But a Special KIND of Stupid. SO Let 'em Burn - SOCIALIST Style. They're actually TOO IGNORANT To worry about!
** HELL is a place with NO HOPE. I just defined CA. !! |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/27/2016)
|
No. California voters shouldn't be allowed to decide what to have for breakfast.
Next question? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
