|
|
|
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:
Why are Domestic Violence Offenders Allowed to Own Guns?
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Federal law says people with protection orders against them are not allowed to possess guns. Yet it’s still legal in Ohio. Why? For one local family, that's a question that will haunt them the rest of their lives. Despite having a protection order against him, a young wife and mother was gunned down by her husband. An act her family says could have been prevented if Ohio followed federal guidelines. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(5/18/2016)
|
What happened to the Lautenberg Law -- the one that deprived anyone who'd ever looked at his/her spouse cross-eyed of all firearms?
Is this a problem we have to solve AGAIN?
Good grief!
Are all these problems going to keep resurfacing, only to again need another law to solve??!?!?!
Oh NO!!!!!
We're all DOOMED!
DOOMED, I SAY! |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
