|
|
|
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:
Sen. Warner to oppose concealed carry push
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Sen. Mark Warner announced Wednesday he intends to oppose a congressional effort to expand gun owner rights through what's known as "concealed carry reciprocity."
The bill, introduced to the House of Representatives in January by GOP Rep. Richard Hudson of Virginia, would allow individuals to be held under the existing concealed carry measures of their home states, even when traveling beyond their borders, effectively loosening laws for out-of-state gun owners nationwide. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(5/4/2017)
|
| Mark, why don't you move to England, you would feel right at home, and it would keep you out of real americans hair! |
| Comment by:
jac
(5/4/2017)
|
| Typical democrat position. Why is this news? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
