|
|
|
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:
NH: House Votes For Waiting Periods, Background Checks on Guns
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The New Hampshire House approved several bills Tuesday aimed at tightening the rules on gun purchases in the state, a dramatic shift in a state known to have some of the least restrictive laws in the country. Supporters in the Democratically-controlled body voted 199-147 in favor of a bill that would mandate a seven-day waiting period on gun sales. The House also approved a bill 203-148 that requires criminal background checks on commercial sales and a seven-day waiting period for gun purchases..
|
| Comment by:
Stripeseven
(3/20/2019)
|
| Law abiding gun owners are the Scapegoats to divert responsibility from the governments inept ability to control criminals, directly onto the backs of those who have done nothing wrong at all. Thinking that somehow, some way, depriving the rights of law abiding citizens will shift into stopping criminals, is at the very best delusional... |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
