|
|
|
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:
KS: Kansas law on campus guns prompts big turnout at hearing
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A bill that would let colleges keep concealed handguns off campus brought self defense advocates and frustrated students alike to the Capitol on Thursday.
Both sides packed into a small committee room to testify about the possible repeal of a law set to go into effect July 1.
Under the proposed Senate legislation supported by several moderate Republicans and Democrats, certain public places would be permanently exempt from the law that would force them to permit concealed handguns. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/27/2017)
|
Laws that restrict fundamental rights cannot be based upon "studies", they must be based upon EVIDENCE, of which there is none, zip, zero, nada. None of the eight states that have full campus carry enacted into law have had any of the paranoid prognostications of opponents materialze.
NONE.
You can't restrict my rights just because you want to. You can't restrict them because of how you "feel". You can't restrict them because leftist academics project theoretical results unsupported by evidence.
YOU. CAN'T. DO. THAT. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
