|
|
|
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:
FL: Strengthen gun store security to close off armories for criminals
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Lawmakers in nine states have filled the gap by requiring that firearms dealers employ security measures to reduce the risk of theft, according to the California-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. They are Alabama, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. A move is afoot, too, in Illinois, where Chicago has been rocked by murders committed with guns from outside the city.
The measures vary by state and include a ban on the display of firearms; standards for storage of firearms, like locking them in a safe overnight; burglar alarms connected directly to the local police department; and a state-approved theft detection and prevention system. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/14/2017)
|
Make the targets and potential victims of crime pay through the nose for being targets and victims.
Right.
Got it.
Of COURSE. It's such a LIBERAL thing to do! |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
