That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend--and Facebook "likes" and "shares" are hugely appreciated.Wow. A
need-based "may issue" system, for gun purchases, rather than for carrying a firearm in public, which even the notoriously "progressive" 9th Circuit Court of Appeals--whose jurisdiction includes California--has deemed unconstitutional. And Boxer calls such a system a "commonsense step."Boxer wants us to prove we "need" a gun? The fact that people like her presume to write the laws by which the rest of us would be required to live is all the proof necessary. [More]
Stumble it!
1 comments:
"Families and others" is vague, probably intentionally so. Those "others" could include your ex-spouse or anyone else who might have some personal beef with you.
And, once again, the idea that one should have to prove "need" to get a permit to own a weapon. Why does that go for guns, but not for TV sets, cell phones, or laptops? Because guns are dangerous weapons? More children drown in swimming pools than get killed or injured in shootings. How about a law requiring a license to own a pool, with each applicant for a license required to prove that he "needs" a pool?
And vehicular homicide kills and injures more victims than all other forms of homicide combined. Would Boxer support some "common sense" automobile laws? Maybe driver's licenses should be "may issue," with local law enforcement (e.g., your city police chief or county sheriff) having the authority to deny you a license if they don't like your face. And we could require a license just to own a car, with the applicant required to prove that he "needs" a car (e.g., if your job is not accessible via public transportation). And maybe we could have "reasonable limits" on automobile capabilities (like a law against civilians owning cars that can go more than 40 MPH).
It's been said before, but it's still true: the first ten amendments to the US Constitution are not "the Bill of Needs."
Post a Comment