|
|
|
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:
NY: DA blasts bill allowing conceal carry in all 50 states
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Gun owners with conceal-carry permits from anywhere in the US would be allowed to tote their pistols around the Big Apple as if it were the Wild West under a proposed federal law — which Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr. warned would be “a mistake.”
Gun owners are currently barred from carrying weapons in Gotham without a city permit, which have stringent requirements.
But the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act — which mirrors President Trump’s own stated opinion — would allow anyone with a valid carry permit to use it in all 50 states, just like a driver’s license. |
| Comment by:
dasing
(2/24/2017)
|
| The mistake is allowing NY to stay in the union! If they leave they can do any thing they want, only no help from the USA! |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/24/2017)
|
Disagree, dasing.
NY, MD, CA etc. must be FORCED into constitutional compliance whether they like it or not. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
