User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/28/2016 8:41:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Heaven forbid local communities be allowed to make their own laws. As long as they don't violate the state constitution I'm fine with it, even if I don't agree with what a community might do.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2016 9:46:05 PM EDT
[#2]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2016 10:02:53 PM EDT
[#3]
So basically f the state constitution we don't care we will pick and choose only to abide by the laws we like, and make up bs ones to make us feel better. Also screw the supreme court we don't care what how you ruled. And yet they wonder why all the big cities are flat broke, crime ridden and full of scumbag welfare leaches who pay no taxes and only bleed the system dry. Makes sense to me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2016 10:34:34 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heaven forbid local communities be allowed to make their own laws. As long as they don't violate the state constitution I'm fine with it, even if I don't agree with what a community might do. We have state wide preemption now because cities were passing very restrictive firearms laws; bans on guns, bans on magazines, licensing to own or possess or sell guns or ammo. Not only do people who live in cities get screwed by restrictions on their RKBA so do travelers through those cities. How many different gun laws will you violate simply by driving on an interstate highway? Even the National Matches at Camp Perry could be at risk. Not only should we have state wide preemption it should be in the state constitution instead of just a state law; furthermore, any city that violates state wide preemption should have all state funding revoked, all their politicians should be thrown in jail for 10 years, and anyone who had their rights violated by any city can sue for $1,000,000 in damages. I will add preemption is not necessarily pro- or anti- RKBA, even the hell hole known as California has preemption, it just means the laws of the state are uniform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2016 11:21:49 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heaven forbid local communities be allowed to make their own laws. As long as they don't violate the state constitution I'm fine with it, even if I don't agree with what a community might do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heaven forbid local communities be allowed to make their own laws. As long as they don't violate the state constitution I'm fine with it, even if I don't agree with what a community might do. What about the U.S. Constitution? Should they be allowed to keep women and blacks from voting on local issues? Should they be allowed to say what types of religions can be practiced within the city/town/village limits? A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2016 12:40:57 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have state wide preemption now because cities were passing very restrictive firearms laws; bans on guns, bans on magazines, licensing to own or possess or sell guns or ammo. Not only do people who live in cities get screwed by restrictions on their RKBA so do travelers through those cities. How many different gun laws will you violate simply by driving on an interstate highway? Even the National Matches at Camp Perry could be at risk. Not only should we have state wide preemption it should be in the state constitution instead of just a state law; furthermore, any city that violates state wide preemption should have all state funding revoked, all their politicians should be thrown in jail for 10 years, and anyone who had their rights violated by any city can sue for $1,000,000 in damages. I will add preemption is not necessarily pro- or anti- RKBA, even the hell hole known as California has preemption, it just means the laws of the state are uniform. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Heaven forbid local communities be allowed to make their own laws. As long as they don't violate the state constitution I'm fine with it, even if I don't agree with what a community might do. We have state wide preemption now because cities were passing very restrictive firearms laws; bans on guns, bans on magazines, licensing to own or possess or sell guns or ammo. Not only do people who live in cities get screwed by restrictions on their RKBA so do travelers through those cities. How many different gun laws will you violate simply by driving on an interstate highway? Even the National Matches at Camp Perry could be at risk. Not only should we have state wide preemption it should be in the state constitution instead of just a state law; furthermore, any city that violates state wide preemption should have all state funding revoked, all their politicians should be thrown in jail for 10 years, and anyone who had their rights violated by any city can sue for $1,000,000 in damages. I will add preemption is not necessarily pro- or anti- RKBA, even the hell hole known as California has preemption, it just means the laws of the state are uniform. Agree 100%. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2016 12:48:42 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Agree 100%. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Heaven forbid local communities be allowed to make their own laws. As long as they don't violate the state constitution I'm fine with it, even if I don't agree with what a community might do. We have state wide preemption now because cities were passing very restrictive firearms laws; bans on guns, bans on magazines, licensing to own or possess or sell guns or ammo. Not only do people who live in cities get screwed by restrictions on their RKBA so do travelers through those cities. How many different gun laws will you violate simply by driving on an interstate highway? Even the National Matches at Camp Perry could be at risk. Not only should we have state wide preemption it should be in the state constitution instead of just a state law; furthermore, any city that violates state wide preemption should have all state funding revoked, all their politicians should be thrown in jail for 10 years, and anyone who had their rights violated by any city can sue for $1,000,000 in damages. I will add preemption is not necessarily pro- or anti- RKBA, even the hell hole known as California has preemption, it just means the laws of the state are uniform. Agree 100%. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2016 12:00:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would need to move in a hurry if this garbage got through... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Heaven forbid local communities be allowed to make their own laws. As long as they don't violate the state constitution I'm fine with it, even if I don't agree with what a community might do. We have state wide preemption now because cities were passing very restrictive firearms laws; bans on guns, bans on magazines, licensing to own or possess or sell guns or ammo. Not only do people who live in cities get screwed by restrictions on their RKBA so do travelers through those cities. How many different gun laws will you violate simply by driving on an interstate highway? Even the National Matches at Camp Perry could be at risk. Not only should we have state wide preemption it should be in the state constitution instead of just a state law; furthermore, any city that violates state wide preemption should have all state funding revoked, all their politicians should be thrown in jail for 10 years, and anyone who had their rights violated by any city can sue for $1,000,000 in damages. I will add preemption is not necessarily pro- or anti- RKBA, even the hell hole known as California has preemption, it just means the laws of the state are uniform. Agree 100%. I want to move to a State like Indiana, which does not allow ballot initiatives. This is something I have been fearing for years ever since they passed the smoking ban in Ohio. Bloomberg has made it a point to fund these initiatives as he did in Washington State with I594 (Universal Background Checks) Direct Democracy is very dangerous as the sheep are to stupid to vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2016 4:37:33 PM EDT
[#9]
Little boy doesnt understand the laws. Heller vs Dc and in particular McDonald vs Chicago supreme court cases specifically outline that the ability to place restrictions on the second amendment is reserved for the Federal and State governments. Local governments cant do this.
Obviously this is part of protecting the second amendment but also to eliminate the mass confusion of hundreds if not thousands of different gun laws through out the state, it would be nearly impossible to travel anywhere with a firearm. Ex: I want to drive from Toledo to Cincinnati. Lets say Toledo has restrictions and I have to put guns in the trunk, then im good for a few miles until i hit Bowling Greem, they thave a law that prevents high cap mags, so i have to exit before the city and drive some country roads to avoid going through the city, then I get back on the highway, now comes Findlay, they are ok with guns as long as theyre all registered, only a $50 fee per gun, then off to Lima, maybe they have a restriction that restricts quantity of ammo, 50 rounds per car so ill stop in Troy Ohio and buy the rest of the Ammo i need for the competition im going too, then Dayton has a outright ban on all guns so you have to by pass the city all together, then finally as you approach Cincinnati a whole new set of laws take effect. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2016 5:17:44 PM EDT
[#10]
A case law study of Supreme court renderings specifically Heller/McDonald may be in order before they start a happy circle jerk
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2016 5:23:49 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heaven forbid local communities be allowed to make their own laws. As long as they don't violate the state constitution I'm fine with it, even if I don't agree with what a community might do. did you really say that? or did someone have gun to your head? You really need to learn what the constitution is all about.. I would no fucking way in hell want some local anti everything like the city of columbus even have the chance to enact ridiculess laws |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2016 5:24:33 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A case law study of Supreme court renderings specifically Heller/McDonald may be in order before they start a happy circle jerk +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2016 6:26:19 PM EDT
[#13]
You guys flipping out are saying local communities shouldn't be able to make their own laws?
Or just not when it comes to guns? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2016 6:59:08 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys flipping out are saying local communities shouldn't be able to make their own laws? Or just not when it comes to guns? Any laws that infringe on Constitutional rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2016 7:19:44 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any laws that infringe on Constitutional rights. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You guys flipping out are saying local communities shouldn't be able to make their own laws? Or just not when it comes to guns? Any laws that infringe on Constitutional rights. Of course -- if laws are unconstitutional, they should be opposed. I haven't said anything contrary to that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2016 7:30:28 PM EDT
[#16]
Columbus had an assault rifle ban many years ago. For the life of me, I can't remember how many hundreds of lives that law saved.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2016 11:11:05 PM EDT
[#17]
hope the have the cash to pay out the winners, like cleveland did..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 9:17:36 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Of course -- if laws are unconstitutional, they should be opposed. I haven't said anything contrary to that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You guys flipping out are saying local communities shouldn't be able to make their own laws? Or just not when it comes to guns? Any laws that infringe on Constitutional rights. Of course -- if laws are unconstitutional, they should be opposed. I haven't said anything contrary to that. In the context of this thread, that is exactly what you are saying. Quoted:
Heaven forbid local communities be allowed to make their own laws. As long as they don't violate the state constitution I'm fine with it, even if I don't agree with what a community might do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 12:06:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys flipping out are saying local communities shouldn't be able to make their own laws? Or just not when it comes to guns? Oh, it's a GREAT idea! While we're at it, let's expand this concept to motorcycles and cars. Motorcycles are a real problem. They're loud, making them a nuisance. They're also dangerous to the operator as well as the poor passenger who just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time should an accident occur. The people of my town should be able to pass a restrictive ordinance that bans them. Should you unwittingly drive through my town, your bike will be impounded and you will be fined or prosecuted. Public safety and all that. Well do the same thing with non-electric cars. It's an environmental issue. Maybe voting too. Only property owners can vote in our local elections. Who cares about that silly constitution. Maybe we'll tax minorities locally. Etc...... Sarcasm off |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 12:56:18 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the context of this thread, that is exactly what you are saying. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You guys flipping out are saying local communities shouldn't be able to make their own laws? Or just not when it comes to guns? Any laws that infringe on Constitutional rights. Of course -- if laws are unconstitutional, they should be opposed. I haven't said anything contrary to that. In the context of this thread, that is exactly what you are saying. The premise of this article is based on a law, not on the constitution. The supreme court said, based on an existing law, cities cannot make their own gun laws. This argument put forth by the writer isn't based on anything saying those laws infringe on a constitutional right. That's not to say I believe it doesn't infringe on a constitutional right, but the argument is (or at least in my min should be) about local control, not guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 12:59:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, it's a GREAT idea! While we're at it, let's expand this concept to motorcycles and cars. Motorcycles are a real problem. They're loud, making them a nuisance. They're also dangerous to the operator as well as the poor passenger who just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time should an accident occur. The people of my town should be able to pass a restrictive ordinance that bans them. Should you unwittingly drive through my town, your bike will be impounded and you will be fined or prosecuted. Public safety and all that. Well do the same thing with non-electric cars. It's an environmental issue. Maybe voting too. Only property owners can vote in our local elections. Who cares about that silly constitution. Maybe we'll tax minorities locally. Etc...... Sarcasm off Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You guys flipping out are saying local communities shouldn't be able to make their own laws? Or just not when it comes to guns? Oh, it's a GREAT idea! While we're at it, let's expand this concept to motorcycles and cars. Motorcycles are a real problem. They're loud, making them a nuisance. They're also dangerous to the operator as well as the poor passenger who just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time should an accident occur. The people of my town should be able to pass a restrictive ordinance that bans them. Should you unwittingly drive through my town, your bike will be impounded and you will be fined or prosecuted. Public safety and all that. Well do the same thing with non-electric cars. It's an environmental issue. Maybe voting too. Only property owners can vote in our local elections. Who cares about that silly constitution. Maybe we'll tax minorities locally. Etc...... Sarcasm off Yeah your local community SHOULD be able to pass their own local ordinances, provided they don't conflict with the constitution. I don't know why you have to use the sarcastic implication that I think those things you mentioned are good ideas. It doesn't matter if I like the idea or not -- local communities should be free to make their own laws good or bad (much like states should be free to make their own laws, provided they are not contrary to the constitution). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 1:14:36 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah your local community SHOULD be able to pass their own local ordinances, provided they don't conflict with the constitution. I don't know why you have to use the sarcastic implication that I think those things you mentioned are good ideas. It doesn't matter if I like the idea or not -- local communities should be free to make their own laws good or bad. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You guys flipping out are saying local communities shouldn't be able to make their own laws? Or just not when it comes to guns? Oh, it's a GREAT idea! While we're at it, let's expand this concept to motorcycles and cars. Motorcycles are a real problem. They're loud, making them a nuisance. They're also dangerous to the operator as well as the poor passenger who just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time should an accident occur. The people of my town should be able to pass a restrictive ordinance that bans them. Should you unwittingly drive through my town, your bike will be impounded and you will be fined or prosecuted. Public safety and all that. Well do the same thing with non-electric cars. It's an environmental issue. Maybe voting too. Only property owners can vote in our local elections. Who cares about that silly constitution. Maybe we'll tax minorities locally. Etc...... Sarcasm off Yeah your local community SHOULD be able to pass their own local ordinances, provided they don't conflict with the constitution. I don't know why you have to use the sarcastic implication that I think those things you mentioned are good ideas. It doesn't matter if I like the idea or not -- local communities should be free to make their own laws good or bad. I wasn't implying that you may think the examples I put forth would be a good idea. I used the first examples to show how, by eliminating state-wide preemption, it would become very easy for an individual to become subject to serious penalties due to a patchwork of gun laws in various towns across the state. I believe it would not be reasonable to expect the someone to memorize all of the firearm ordinances of all towns across the state. Ignorance, however, is no excuse for breaking the law. Apply this concept to something as politically charged as firearms, and you're asking for trouble. The last 2 examples pertained to civil rights and the constitution, which you already addressed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 2:33:36 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heaven forbid local communities be allowed to make their own laws. As long as they don't violate the state constitution I'm fine with it, even if I don't agree with what a community might do. I'll just quote your first comment. I don't think local communities should be allowed to do anything that is an infringement on any of my Constitutional Rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 3:04:35 PM EDT
[#24]
Constitutional arguments had nothing to do with passing preemption. It is purely a practical matter. The legislature deemed it unfair that gun owners in general, and ccw holders in particular, should have to be knowledgeable of potentially hu dress of differing city ordinances as they travelled within the state.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 5:05:36 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any laws that infringe on Constitutional rights. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You guys flipping out are saying local communities shouldn't be able to make their own laws? Or just not when it comes to guns? Any laws that infringe on Constitutional rights. Spot on response Safe1! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 5:11:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. A huge........NO! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 5:48:24 PM EDT
[#27]
We need to somehow figure out a way to fix the the root of the problem. And that problem is constitutional amendments via ballot initiative. It pretty ridiculous that every single election cycle, there is always some kind of state consistutional amendment being proposal before the voters. With a simple majority of the vote, our state constitution has been altered. For this year alone so far (2016) we are already looking at another marijuana amendment and an amendment to raise minimum wage to $12.00 an hour. Whether you agree or disagree on the topic is beside the point, there shouldn't have to be amendment to our State Constitution on either of those issues. Our Federal Constitution has not changed that much over the course of its history and neither should our State Constitution. As it stands now there really is no point to having a state constitution, given how easy it is to alter it. All you need is some nanny state do gooder group to round up a bunch of signatures, make sure the wording is good, and presto its on the ballot. THIS NEEDS TO STOP! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 6:09:37 PM EDT
[#28]
^^^^^^Agreed^^^^
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2016 7:00:13 PM EDT
[#29]
Http://m.cleveland19.com/19actionnews/pm_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=od:qOujYI8u
Look at 627.13 and the gun offender's registry sec 628. How's that state preemption thing workin' out for ya? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 1:12:42 PM EDT
[#30]
Our interpretation of what constitutes constitutional legislation does not hold any weight with city, count, state, or federal legislatures. It's ultimately up to the state and federal supreme courts.
We won some solid state cases but those can go away with an initiative on the state constitution. We won some cases at the SCOTUS; however, in case you missed it, those decisions are being interpreted very narrowly by lower courts. We can't rely on the courts to save us. We have to do the heavy lifting ourselves. If that means cities get their widdle feewings hurt that they can't screw with gun owners in any way shape or form too bad for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2016 10:42:39 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah your local community SHOULD be able to pass their own local ordinances, provided they don't conflict with the constitution. I don't know why you have to use the sarcastic implication that I think those things you mentioned are good ideas. It doesn't matter if I like the idea or not -- local communities should be free to make their own laws good or bad (much like states should be free to make their own laws, provided they are not contrary to the constitution). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yeah your local community SHOULD be able to pass their own local ordinances, provided they don't conflict with the constitution. I don't know why you have to use the sarcastic implication that I think those things you mentioned are good ideas. It doesn't matter if I like the idea or not -- local communities should be free to make their own laws good or bad (much like states should be free to make their own laws, provided they are not contrary to the constitution). they can, as long as they dont go ageist general laws... kinda the point of general laws... gun laws are now general laws.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2016 1:25:58 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah your local community SHOULD be able to pass their own local ordinances, provided they don't conflict with the constitution. I don't know why you have to use the sarcastic implication that I think those things you mentioned are good ideas. It doesn't matter if I like the idea or not -- local communities should be free to make their own laws good or bad (much like states should be free to make their own laws, provided they are not contrary to the constitution). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You guys flipping out are saying local communities shouldn't be able to make their own laws? Or just not when it comes to guns? While we're at it, let's expand this concept to motorcycles and cars. Motorcycles are a real problem. They're loud, making them a nuisance. They're also dangerous to the operator as well as the poor passenger who just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time should an accident occur. The people of my town should be able to pass a restrictive ordinance that bans them. Should you unwittingly drive through my town, your bike will be impounded and you will be fined or prosecuted. Public safety and all that. Well do the same thing with non-electric cars. It's an environmental issue. Maybe voting too. Only property owners can vote in our local elections. Who cares about that silly constitution. Maybe we'll tax minorities locally. Etc...... Sarcasm off What if your city wants to prohibit dancing?!?! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2016 1:26:59 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We need to somehow figure out a way to fix the the root of the problem. And that problem is constitutional amendments via ballot initiative. It pretty ridiculous that every single election cycle, there is always some kind of state consistutional amendment being proposal before the voters. With a simple majority of the vote, our state constitution has been altered. For this year alone so far (2016) we are already looking at another marijuana amendment and an amendment to raise minimum wage to $12.00 an hour. Whether you agree or disagree on the topic is beside the point, there shouldn't have to be amendment to our State Constitution on either of those issues. Our Federal Constitution has not changed that much over the course of its history and neither should our State Constitution. As it stands now there really is no point to having a state constitution, given how easy it is to alter it. All you need is some nanny state do gooder group to round up a bunch of signatures, make sure the wording is good, and presto its on the ballot. THIS NEEDS TO STOP! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2016 3:02:12 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the state should be free to pass preemption laws, when necessary. What if your city wants to prohibit dancing?!?! Like the 10th Amendment, if it isn't specifically given to the state via constitution, it should be reserved to the people. One could argue "the people" could vote on state-wide laws, but if the state constitution does not give it jurisdiction over that area, it would be overriding the rights of local municipalities and political subdivisions. If my city wants to prohibit dancing, how does another community have the right to decide what's best for mine? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2016 11:05:05 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like the 10th Amendment, if it isn't specifically given to the state via constitution, it should be reserved to the people. One could argue "the people" could vote on state-wide laws, but if the state constitution does not give it jurisdiction over that area, it would be overriding the rights of local municipalities and political subdivisions. If my city wants to prohibit dancing, how does another community have the right to decide what's best for mine? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And the state should be free to pass preemption laws, when necessary. What if your city wants to prohibit dancing?!?! Like the 10th Amendment, if it isn't specifically given to the state via constitution, it should be reserved to the people. One could argue "the people" could vote on state-wide laws, but if the state constitution does not give it jurisdiction over that area, it would be overriding the rights of local municipalities and political subdivisions. If my city wants to prohibit dancing, how does another community have the right to decide what's best for mine? If dancing is outlawed I'm calling Kevin Bacon, and setting him loose. LoL, but seriously if the heart of it all starts going anti gun god helps us all. Its the domino that will topple the rest of this countries great free states. Less hope not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2016 6:58:12 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Http://m.cleveland19.com/19actionnews/pm_/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=od:qOujYI8u Look at 627.13 and the gun offender's registry sec 628. How's that state preemption thing workin' out for ya? 9.68 overrides 627.13. The registry of offenders has nothing to do with 9.68. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2016 9:37:00 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If dancing is outlawed I'm calling Kevin Bacon, and setting him loose. LoL, but seriously if the heart of it all starts going anti gun god helps us all. Its the domino that will topple the rest of this countries great free states. Less hope not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And the state should be free to pass preemption laws, when necessary. What if your city wants to prohibit dancing?!?! Like the 10th Amendment, if it isn't specifically given to the state via constitution, it should be reserved to the people. One could argue "the people" could vote on state-wide laws, but if the state constitution does not give it jurisdiction over that area, it would be overriding the rights of local municipalities and political subdivisions. If my city wants to prohibit dancing, how does another community have the right to decide what's best for mine? If dancing is outlawed I'm calling Kevin Bacon, and setting him loose. LoL, but seriously if the heart of it all starts going anti gun god helps us all. Its the domino that will topple the rest of this countries great free states. Less hope not. This would be a constitutional amendment via ballot initiative. Not all states allow ballot initiatives for the reasons mentioned above. The naysayers know this and they are playing off the stupidity of "the people". And there are some stupid ass voters out there. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
