|
|
|
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:
OH: Oops! Ohio lawmakers, trying to expand gun rights, accidentally ban guns. Fix sent to governor
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Amid the bill's many revisions (language that would have allowed shooters to stand their ground was removed), a paragraph was misplaced. The result: some long guns were inadvertently lumped into a banned category.
So lawmakers introduced a corrective bill and voted to implement it immediately. That way, the fix will take effect before House Bill 228 does on March 28. (Most laws take effect 90 days after they are signed.)
“We had a drafting error where we included certain shotguns and rifles into a dangerous ordnance section. Those clearly do not belong there,” said Rep. Phil Plummer, R-Dayton. |
| Comment by:
jac
(3/7/2019)
|
If it was to expand gun rights, why did it have a dangerous ordnance section?
All guns can be considered dangerous, as are cars, knives, hammers and base ball bats. There is no reason to demonize any type of gun. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/7/2019)
|
“This kind of last-minute lawmaking is bad for our democracy.” - Rep. Brigid Kelly, D-Hyde Park
"A Republic, madam, if you can keep it." - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
