|
|
|
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:
CO: What is considered an assault weapon?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Several municipalities in Boulder County passed new gun restrictions on “assault weapons,” but what does that mean?
In a package of new gun restrictions passed on Tuesday night, Boulder City Council wrote that assault weapons have “unique features that allow shooters to rapidly fire a large number of rounds — more than is ever needed for lawful self-defense — while maintaining control of the firearm in order to accurately target and kill more victims.”
The King Soopers shooter, for example, used an AR-style pistol said to be designed for close combat, “because of the short length and ability to fire rifle rounds that can penetrate ballistic-resistant vests,” according to the council. |
| Comment by:
shootergdv
(6/9/2022)
|
| Who defined how many rounds are needed for lawful self-defence ? I want all I can carry ! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
