|
|
|
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:
DC: D.C. Council to Have Final Vote on Bill Aimed at Seizing Guns from Suspected Abusers
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://constitutionnetwork.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The D.C. Council on Tuesday could pass new laws restricting the ability of gun owners to modify weapons and require police to seize guns while enforcing protective orders in domestic disputes. The latter provision — known as a “red flag law” — is gaining popularity, with variants implemented in more than a dozen states, including Maryland. The D.C. version would mandate that authorities take firearms out of the hands of suspected abusers more quickly than is permitted under existing laws. Other proposed laws, if passed, would ban the rapid-fire attachments known as bump stocks and increase penalties for extended magazines, accessories that allow guns to fire faster and hold more bullets. |
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(12/17/2018)
|
| The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, declares,"[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or " Property", without due process of law". Maybe it's time to remind these elected officials, that Government was not to exercise any power not delegated to it by the Constitution. Any person advocating gun control, gun registration, etc., of law abiding citizens, does not deserve to be an elected representative. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
