|
|
|
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:
IN: Indiana legislators dump proposed handgun licensing repeal
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A proposal to repeal the state’s handgun licensing law was dumped Wednesday by an Indiana House committee in the face of opposition from several police organizations.
The House Public Policy Committee voted 12-1 in favor of an overhauled bill that keeps the current handgun licensing process while eliminating what are now fees of up to $125 for a lifetime permit to carry a handgun in public.
The committee’s action sidesteps what could’ve become a contentious debate over repealing the permit law that supporters argue infringes on the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment by forcing gun owners to get fingerprinted, submit to a police background check and pay the licensing fees. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(1/26/2018)
|
"Those with felony or domestic battery convictions can be barred from obtaining a license."
But they can't be stopped by any law from carrying a gun.
This is the fatal flaw of the 'permit' argument. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
