|
|
|
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:
HI: State Could Be First State to Put Gun Owners in Federal Database
Submitted by:
jac
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Yet others say gun owners shouldn't have to be entered in a database to practice a constitutional right. "You're curtailing that right by requiring that a name be entered into a database without doing anything wrong," said Kenneth Lawson, faculty at the University of Hawaii's William S. Richardson School of Law.
Legal experts say the bill could face challenges, but would probably hold up in court. Recent Supreme Court rulings have clarified states' ability to regulate gun sales, said David Levine, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law.
Submitters note: What is wrong with liberals that they need to continually harass law abiding citizens?
|
| Comment by:
stevelync
(5/26/2016)
|
Hawaiian gun owners are already registered in a database. This is just icing on an already large cake.
Hawaii's population is made up mostly of submissive cultures accustomed to top-down authoritarianism. The have no clue what real liberty is or what to do with it if they had it. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
