|
|
|
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:
LA: Flawed Proposal Claims to Get a Handle On Gun Violence
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
If New Orleans City Councilman James Gray has his way, an ordinance he plans to introduce in March will help police to get a handle on gun violence in the city by requiring private gun owners to report lost or stolen guns to the NOPD.
While federal law already requires licensed gun dealers to report lost or stolen firearms, there is currently no such requirement in place for private gun owners. |
| Comment by:
AFRet
(2/23/2016)
|
And just exactly how will this affect crime?
Even with a database of every firearm in existence and who owns it, how do you solve a crime by knowing someone who legally owned it and had it stolen prevent a crime.
As usual, a stolen gun is only trackable after the crime when the criminal is caught. Since he or she stole the gun, how does knowing who the original lawful owner was have ANY impact on the crime. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
