|
|
|
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:
MD: Legislator Takes Aim At Guns
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://keepandbeararms.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
State Del. Luke Clippinger (D-46) said he is planning to reintroduce a bill that would prevent people on the federal Terror Watch list from purchasing a firearm in Maryland. The bill by the Baltimore delegate would use the federal terror watch list, which bans people from boarding airplanes, from purchasing a firearm in Maryland. After the shooting at Pulse nightclub in Orlando, a similar bill was introduced in the United States Senate that would have banned anyone on a federal watch list from purchasing a firearm.
|
| Comment by:
gariders
(8/16/2016)
|
To remove someones 'rights' you must first bring some kind of legal action against them personally. Otherwise we are giving the government WAY too much power.
We fought for our independence from a government that we seem to trying to create now. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(8/16/2016)
|
| If the govt actually wanted to address terrorist or any sort of criminals using guns, they could craft a bill with 'due process' next week. But if the goal is to sneak in restrictions on us citizens, well then. . . |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
