|
|
|
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:
Rep. Demings Wrong on Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Rep. Val Demings’ (D-Fla.) recent op-ed (“ ‘Concealed Carry Reciprocity’ measure would gut public safety laws,” June 29) demonstrates she either hasn’t bothered to read the bills she criticizes or is willingly misrepresenting them for political reasons. Law-abiding Americans are increasingly purchasing firearms but only after undergoing an industry-supported FBI background check. She asserts, falsely or ignorantly, that criminals with domestic violence and violent criminals could carry a gun. |
| Comment by:
netsyscon
(7/11/2017)
|
Let's get real here. "criminals with domestic violence and violent criminals could carry a gun." They do NOW. Nothing but a good guy (cop) with a gun is going to stop them. The ability to travel with a gun when you are a CCW is huge. But these people want to do it legaly. Only the criminals now currently do this.
WAKE UP. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
