|
|
|
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:
GA: Could Georgia law put confiscated guns back on the streets?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
No one will argue that gun violence is a problem in Savannah.
Hundreds of guns used in crimes are confiscated by law enforcement every year, and you might think those guns are destroyed. However, that's not the case.
The law says if the gun does not have a rightful owner, police are supposed to sell them to licensed dealers. But the law hasn't always been that way.
Before 2012, police could destroy the guns they confiscated or use them for training. But in 2012, legislators changed that law, forcing police to sell the guns, with the money going back to the county |
| Comment by:
mickey
(5/15/2015)
|
Oh, you're a TV station. I would have assumed it was the Atlanta Urinal-Constipation, judging from the stupidity of the article's title.
What if your headline asked the rhetorical question:
Could Georgia law put confiscated cars back on the streets?
Now do you see why you look like idiots for saying 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) |
|
|
