|
|
|
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:
Shooter likely used a semi-automatic rifle not banned by law
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The man who shot a top Republican lawmaker at baseball practice Wednesday likely used a semi-automatic rifle not banned by law – a fact that will set off yet another debate over gun control in America.
Federal and Virginia laws do not prohibit the possession of semi-automatic rifles if they are used for lawful purposes, including hunting. A congressional ban on certain types of rifles expired in 2004 after 10 years.
Virginia allows carrying a loaded semi-automatic rifle equipped with a magazine that will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition in certain public locations, but a permit is required. Failing to have a permit is a misdemeanor. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/15/2017)
|
Ridiculous. Would it have been better if he had used one that IS banned by law?
"Would you like it better if they jumped outta windows, little girl?" - Archie Bunker |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
