|
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: Don't fast-track sweeping gun law changes
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Time for thoughtful debate has not been a hallmark of the 2017 General Assembly. We hope the urge to fast-track bills will ebb as lawmakers seek a new balance between gun ownership and public safety.
House Study Bill 133, proposed by the judiciary committee, is 41-pages. It amends and strikes several sections of the Iowa Code that relate to weapon permitting, gun ownership and criminal justice. The bill is so broad and, at times, convoluted that it cannot be fully explored in the space provided. As an example, pieces of code are amended in one section of the bill and, in a later section, struck completely and replaced with new text. |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/23/2017)
|
Baloney.
All proposed laws that expand the right to arms and disembowel government regulations should be fast-tracked.
And the more such proposals are filed, the better. |
|
|
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) |
|
|