|
|
|
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:
IA: Bill: Iowa police could face $50K fine for enforcing federal gun laws
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Local governments or law enforcement officers who enforce federal gun regulations that exceed Iowa’s rules would be subject to $50,000 fines under a legislative proposal advanced Wednesday by Iowa Senate Republicans.
The proposal, which Senate Republicans have titled the Second Amendment Preservation Act, would nullify any federal gun regulations that exceed Iowa state law. The legislation is similar in spirit to resolutions passed by several Iowa counties declaring themselves so-called “sanctuary counties” from federal gun laws. |
| Comment by:
repealfederalgunlaws
(1/21/2022)
|
| OMG PASS THIS and call it the waco murders prevention action. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
