Kentucky Senate Passes Constitutional Carry Bill, Moms Demand Action OUTRAGED!

kentucky constitutional carry moms demand action

courtesy kentucky.com

The Kentucky Senate made the local chapter of Moms Demand Action very unhappy yesterday. As kentucky.com reports,

“This is how our state decided to mark that anniversary of the deadliest high school shooting in our nation’s history — pass more gun legislation, making it easier for people to carry weapons in our state,” said Connie Coartney, volunteer leader with the Kentucky chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

What has Coartney and her fellow hoplophobic harridans in such a lather is the fact that a proposed constitutional carry law was cleared by a Senate committee by a vote of 11-1. It then was voted on by the full Senate and approved by a vote of 29-8.

The bill is sponsored by Senator Brandon Smith.

Smith noted that if someone has a gun under a coat, a permit now is needed. He said that does not seem fair.

“This bill decriminalizes wearing a coat in the state of Kentucky,” said (National Rifle Association state director Art) Thomm.

If it becomes law, Kentuckians could also avoid paying a $75 fee in order to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Despite their outrage at the bill’s approval, Coartney and her red-shirted fellow travelers didn’t bother to speak against it in the Senate.

During the Senate committee hearing, no one testified in opposition to the bill.

Coartney said her group wanted to hear “what they had to say. We will be speaking out when the bill gets to the House.”

We have no doubt.

comments

  1. avatar JS says:

    Its unfortunate common sense cannot prevail here in Crappyfornia

    1. avatar OBOB says:

      every state will be for the most part California in 50 years unless that border gets closed
      Watch Eylisum movie to see the future…just remove the space station

      1. avatar Janie Prather says:

        I disagree. Unless things change, 50 years is a far too hopeful timeline.

  2. avatar Kman says:

    Gee, I hope none of those outraged mom’s have strokes or anything.

    1. avatar Ogre says:

      The moms may not have strokes, but they will probably get the vapors.

  3. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    I’m “outraged” that Kentucky politicians took so long to bring up this legislation.

  4. avatar FedUp says:

    I’d like to see Michigan’s Senate follow suit, now that they aren’t on their knees with their faces buried in a gun grabbing Republican governor’s crotch any more.

    1. avatar Mike says:

      Yes, but our NEW governor is likely to veto Constitutional Carry just the same as the last one, being both democrat and female. There are lots of really great 2A supporting women out there, but I suspect that there aren’t any serving as governor of Michigan. I’d love to be proven wrong, but…

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        If it’s a Dem, they’ll hold a veto override vote.
        If it’s a GOP guv, the majority leader will prevent it from ever being voted on in the first place.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          FedUp,

          That is an interesting point. Are there enough votes to override a veto? My intuition says no. I would love to be wrong in this case.

          How strange it would be if a state was unable to pass constitutional carry when their governor was a Republican and yet was able to pass constitutional carry when their governor was a Democrat! I think the Republicans should try to do it just to p!ss off the Democrats.

  5. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

    I wonder if the men in these women’s lives have any balls? My wife would never dream of telling me I couldn’t own guns or carry a gun. Although I would venture to say my wife is smarter since she understands you don’t show up empty handed to a gun fight or a deadly self defense encounter period. I would also venture that most anti gun people would be quick to change their minds after being the victim once should they survive. On the other hand I believe some would rather die than defend themselves. If that’s the case then I say so be it. The strong survive and the weak don’t, primal law of nature.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      These “women” if you can call them that were specifically created by God in order for the Soy Boys of the world to have companionship. Real men don’t date them. Only the most effeminate of cucks can stand to be around them for more than a picosecond.

    2. avatar Red in CO says:

      No, they wouldn’t change their minds. Broadly speaking, there are two ways the human mind can react to being victimized. On one hand, someone could be victimized and think, “That was horrible. What steps can I take to ensure that doesn’t happen to me again?”

      And on the other hand, someone else could be victimized and think, “That was horrible. Why was this allowed to happen and who failed me?” In other words, it speaks to something far more fundamental than the simple politics of gun ownership, it’s one of the pillars that underpins an individual’s entire worldview. Some people want to take care of themselves and will resent any effort to restrict their ability to do so. Others want to be taken care of and will resent any effort to force, or even allow, them to do so.

      Even among the moms demanding action there are probably a few suburban housewives who would change their tune if confronted with true evil. But the vast majority would simply have their belief that guns need to be controlled further solidified. It’s even in their name: Moms Demand Action. Right off the bat, it puts the onus on someone else. It’s not Moms Taking Action, it’s Moms Demand Action (by somebody else).

      1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        Liberals wanting their free stuff again. Big government please save me because you said you would keep me safe! Yeah, right! I personally want nothing but what I earn and my right to protect my family and myself is more important than their dilutional free stuff and protection from a corrupt government.

  6. avatar ANG Pilot says:

    Yeah, Connie. I’m outraged that emotionally unhinged bigots like you blame people like me for the actions of a very few psychopaths or inner city gang bangers. Go to hell.

  7. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I think kentucky is number 5 or 6 for best state, out of 50 for gun civil rights. Depending on the list you use.
    After a school shooting in 2018, KY Gov Matt Bevan called for arming teachers who volunteer to carry. He did not call for gun control. He said gun control is not the answer. He said guns are not the problem.

    He said there is evil in the world. He is a Christian. And the Libertarian Reason magazine hates and fears him. They said so during the ky election when Bevin was running.

    And he signaled he would sign a medical pot law.

    1. avatar AD says:

      All of this is true. I haven’t yet seen the KY house take any action on SB 150. Am I wrong?

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        I don’t trust pot heads. Historically the have been anti 2A. They have NEVER supported gun civil rights. My experience comes from 1970s California, where I grew up. This is where this legalization crap started. Tetrahydrocannabinol is helpful in SOME cancer cases. But these very ill people are being used by others who just want to get intoxicated. Marijuana has become the new “snake oil”. It cures everything and everyone. “just try a hit”

        Pot heads would rather get high, than get a gun for self-defense. Most of them are very racist. They have said “if we can just make pot legal, then there will be no reason for the black weed dealers to have guns.” They said this in 70s, 80s, 90s, and into the 2000s.

        For some reason now the white pot dealers in denver colorado now want guns to protect themselves. Perhaps they have learned a very hard lesson, that black dealers already understood decades ago?

        Only a doctor should prescribe pot or any controlled medicine. In california you can get legal pot for any reason. And you don’t need a doctor to give you permission slip.

        I think it will become legal in kentucky. But it will takes a few years before that happens. Industrial hemp has a long history in kentucky. But that’s not the same weed.

        1. avatar AD says:

          Isn’t SB 150 the constitutional carry bill?

        2. avatar balais says:

          This is so true

          I previously supported pot legalization, now I no longer give a fuck about it because potheads don’t give a fuck about *my* rights.

          Fuck em.

          And states that legalize drugs have a propensity to draw homeless and the worst rif raff i’ve ever had the displeasure of running into. Good job Denver, Portland, Seattle…

  8. avatar James Banish says:

    I live in North Dakota and we have Constitutional Carry. We also have a loose ability to purchase hand guns. Simply fill out a NICS report and if you get a proceed; you can take it home that same day. For you leftis followers, we some of lowest crime rates especially when it comes to using a gun.

  9. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Hey Connie Coartney, now I know the reason behind the long face…

    1. avatar Geoff "A cranky 'Mad Mommie' makes me happy" PR says:

      “…now I know the reason behind the long face…”

      She kinda does have a horse face, doesn’t she, Tom? 😉

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Kentucky is famous for its horses. I think you insult Kentucky horses by comparing them to this mule faced woman.

        1. avatar Don't insult our thoroughbreds with that diaper-bred. says:

          Thank you!!!! Kentucky horses are fargin’ gorgeous! I say this as a person who goes to watch them run frequently.

      2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        I’ve seen better horses than that particular Demanding Commie Mommy.

    2. avatar Unknown Comedian says:

      Not so much a horse as a down-market version of hillary clintoon, which is what they all typically look like.

    3. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      “where is the bar tender?”
      -termite
      “i’ll be having a couple highballs.”
      -giraffe

  10. avatar Geoff "A cranky 'Mad Mommie' makes me happy" PR says:

    When a ‘Mad Mommie’ is outraged, I feel a distinctive pleasant swelling sensation in my nether regions…

    *snicker* 😉

  11. avatar Roh-Dog says:

    If she doesn’t like it there are Sates aplenty to choose from. May I suggest my State, Connecticut.
    They have the gun laws you probably dream about!

  12. avatar American Patriot says:

    By using the term “Moms” you are ASSuming there WOmen, based on the short Video clip I’m not so sure!

  13. avatar strych9 says:

    “…Kentuckians could also avoid paying a $75 fee in order to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

    Does KY not have permitless OC?

    1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

      Who cares? It’s damn difficult to open carry with a winter coat. Shouldn’t need a permit to carry a firearm regardless, Fudd. This is how rights get taken away by offering alternatives. There are no alternatives to a right except the right itself. Nothing more nothing less.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        LULZ. Wow. Throw dem insults brah!

        1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          It’s called common sense for those of us that actually care about keeping our rights and making them stronger, bra!

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          You fail to understand the question, never mind the reason the question was asked.

          Instead of querying why I would ask something like that you assume things about my position and and jump to insults. ‘Cause you know, jumping straight to ad hominem is the hallmark of intelligence.

          Clearly the word “nuance” means exactly fuck all to you.

        3. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Sounded to me like “Doesn’t Kentucky have open carry?” then who cares if they allow constitutional carry. Why does it sound that way? Because there’s far too many so called pro gun 2A people that have settled for what ever they can get. Or worse given up some things to keep others. I’m 100% don’t tread on me and I’ll keep my rights and give up nothing. I didn’t serve this country in war to come home to a bunch of candy asses that can’t or won’t stand up for themselves and wants big government to do it for them. I personally don’t care about open carry because it’s a settle for less right.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          That’s a pretty long way to explain how you fucked up and not apologize for doing so.

          “Sorry, I misunderstood this for some FUDD shit” would be shorter and be an actual apology.

          I’m not interested in pedantic bullshit about coats. I’m interested in winning and I’m not interested in fucktard lawmakers who make stupid and counter productive arguments.

          Argue the real argument and move forward or admit you’re a moron and resign.

        5. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Pretty sure I made my stance pretty clear. If an apology is what you want pull up up a chair. Put up a vague ass comment and then not like the response. Too fucking bad.

        6. avatar strych9 says:

          LOL. Want something from you?

          Hardly. I’ve had more useful conversations with a molding ham sandwich that’s already been processed by one of my dogs.

        7. avatar MikeJH121 says:

          “Batshit crazy egotistical asshole works. And like Chucky in SoA, I accept that.”

          I like the old saying….

          “Quit telling people I’m an asshole, I like to see the look on their faces when they find out on their own.”

          hehehe

      2. avatar Gadsden says:

        IV, Strych9 is definetly no Fudd. Calm down.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          I started laffing a little at calling S9 a fudd. I’ve called him all kinds of things, but never a fudd.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          “I’ve called him all kinds of things, but never a fudd.”

          Batshit crazy egotistical asshole works. And like Chucky in SoA, I accept that.

        3. avatar Gadsden says:

          I think a lot of people throw that word around and don’t know what it means. A lot of that in today’s youth.

    2. avatar Red in CO says:

      If they do, that actually highlights the stupidity of the law. It’s the same here in Colorado, any adult can strap on a handgun (or a rifle, for that matter) and walk down the street, no permit necessary. But the second you throw a jacket on over it suddenly it’s a crime. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

      It also means that if you wanna OC in the winter you have to either carry over your jacket or in a thigh holster, neither of which is all that practical

      1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

        Agreed!

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        I’m not questioning the intelligence of the law. Merely asking what the law is in KY.

        CC laws are generally pretty darn dumb. Colorado, Ohio and New Mexico all have fairly similar laws on this topic. All, regardless of the slight variations, are silly. It’s not like a gun becomes more or less dangerous or ceases to exist if you can’t see it.

        However, if the law allows OC without a permit then making rhetorical flourishes like the one I quoted are self-defeating because they are obviously disingenuous and that fact is clear to those folks we wish to convince of our position. If OC is legal without a permit then, while a PITA, it’s a false statement to say that one must pay to exercise the right. Just like saying this “decriminalizes wearing a coat” is a blatant and obviously false statement. Yes, the law is dumb and makes very simple and silly things the difference between legal and criminal behavior. That’s stupid and it should change but making obviously false statements about the topic doesn’t help us move towards the change we desire.

        Such use of language doesn’t advance the ball in our favor at all. It makes us look like we’re making shit up and arguing in bad faith. I understand the use of the language, and it works for the gun-owning audience. It doesn’t for those on the fence and it makes those people more likely to believe the antis.

        1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          Missouri has adopted a half assed constitution concealed carry law. That means you can carry concealed without a permit anywhere that doesn’t have a no open carry law or ordinance. Unfortunately those that are uninformed most major municipalities have such a law or ordinance. We also have stand your ground and castle doctrine laws as well. The big picture without a permit would look like this in Missouri. You carry in your vehicle anywhere you like as long as it isn’t easily seen but the minute you put your firearm on your person and step out of your vehicle in a no open carry area and you just became an armed criminal. I still have my permit and will always until they remove the but and if from the law. I will take it though as a step in the right direction of liberty and freedom.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          You still miss the point.

          The point is that what’s been said here has merit if the laws in Kentucky also preclude OC. This is what I was asking.

          However, if OC is legal then the laws are still silly but the statements made here are akin to an alcoholic screaming “They’re trying to ban beer!” or “They’re trying to ban cars!” because of a drunk driving law.

          Drunk driving laws are problematic and stupid IMHO but not because they attempt to ban booze or cars. If you want to advance a logical an cohesive argument then you do so. If you’re shit outta logic and facts you resort to bullshit. When you get caught spinning bullshit people are less likely to believe you in the future. Ergo, unnecessary and demonstrably false rhetoric might whip up your base but it is a long-term loser for the goal you hope to achieve.

          Cry “WOLF!” enough when there is no wolf and your ass gets eaten when there really is a wolf.

          The truth is on our side. There is no reason to resort to this kind of nonsense. At absolute best it’s counter-productive.

        3. avatar I had a name up there somewhere but forgot it. says:

          Boys, boys, boys!!! Good grief! Open carry is completely legal in the state of Kentucky, is enshrined in the STATE CONSTITUTION, and there is even a white paper clarifying its extent for law enforcement in those slightly off places outside Cincinnati. Open carry is not only legal in Kentucky, it is COMMONLY practiced, to the point where you won’t even get a second glance very often. One day at Walmart I bumped into five separate people with pistols on their hips of all stripes. This is Kentucky, for God’s sake.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          “Open carry is completely legal in the state of Kentucky, is enshrined in the STATE CONSTITUTION…”

          Thank you.

      3. avatar Kenneth says:

        Its the same here in Montana. One can open carry, but you need a permit to put your coat on. And it’s been -20F for the last three weeks, so coats seldom come off. Thankfully, we have a nice little carve out for those aware of it. To “carry” here means to have “attached to the body”. This means that carry in a manpurse, or a rucksack, or a briefcase, is still open carry, no permit required.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          “Its the same here in Montana. One can open carry, but you need a permit to put your coat on.”

          This is exactly the problem. This statement is patently UNTRUE. There is no law that says you can’t put a coat on. There is a law that says you can combine certain things like a coat and a set of types of holster.

          Ever heard of a dropleg? I bet some idiot in MDA has and they’re going to point it out eventually and call you a liar. Then they’re going to expand on that and say you just want your toys and care nothing about public safety. Just like that the people in the middle turned against you. You shot yourself in the foot.

          This argument contains an untrue statement. I understand the argument and I agree with it but telling a lie even for a noble cause is still lying and it undercuts future credibility. Instead, point out the stupidity of the law itself and how it does nothing for safety. Don’t argue the law says you can’t wear a coat when it’s cold out.

    3. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

      When I first replied to your comment this is what I read “Does KY not have permitless OC?”, not what is there now, which is this ““…Kentuckians could also avoid paying a $75 fee in order to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

      Does KY not have permitless OC?”.

      Open carry would alleviate the need for a permit fee, right? That’s a non starter to allowing people their constitutional right without restrictions. Constitutional carry would also alleviate those permit fees with less restriction and less confusion with the law. The same confusion that will get some people here in Missouri in trouble as I’ve already explained. Like I said who cares about open carry. Just because it doesn’t cost anything? The only way a right isn’t going to cost money is if everyone is on the same page and fights for it. This includes all pro activist groups which they are not. People that claim to be pro gun can’t even agree on no restrictions. How hard is that, no restrictions? If you are not a dangerous criminal why should there be restrictions?

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Jesus Tapdancing Christ.

        As I have now explained multiple times, the point of my question has sweet fuck all to do with whether or not the laws make sense or are reasonable. That is entirely another issue.

        The point is how a winning argument is constructed. A winning argument doesn’t come with obvious holes in it that are the result of using over-the-top rhetoric and untrue statements. A winning argument doesn’t open the person making it to obvious attacks on their credibility and thereby undermine anything they might say in the future. A winning argument doesn’t play right-the-fuck into the opponent’s argument.

        Shit like this does all those things and more. As such, it’s not a winning argument. It’s stupid.

        Using untrue statements like “We’re decriminalizing wearing a coat!” or suggesting that a CCW permit fee “prevents” people from carrying a gun legally just makes you look like a condescending and untrustworthy asshole to the people who are undecided on the issue. Those people who are exactly the target audience now have a reason to think that the person advancing such an argument is full of shit and you just gave it to them by advancing obvious strawman arguments.

        We have enough problems countering anti gun propaganda without moron legislators advancing anti-gun arguments FOR US by doing the right thing while using rhetoric that suggests otherwise.

        1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

          You got the answer to your question. Now what smart guy? You apparently have all the fucking answer. My comments were straight forward without a bunch bullshit added in. What does a winning argument look like? Pandering bullshit that you have let loose with here? What are you a lawyer? If so that explains a lot. If the goal is no restrictions on rights, and that is the goal, right? Then anything less than that really doesn’t fucking matter does it, bra? All that bullshit and vagueness to get pissed off because someone calls you a Fudd. I could call you a liberal too. Are you going to get all defensive like one too? You certainly did over being called a Fudd. I can be called a Fudd, liberal, Democrat, left wing, or anything else for that matter and I could care less. I know I’m not which invalidates another’s opinion of me. Crying over being called something true or not is school yard cry baby shit. Wah boo fuckem hoo, I want my mommy he called me a bad name. Please enlighten us all with your all knowing wisdom for steadfast results there tough guy. I’ve pointed out quite a few problems so you can give us the best fix that everyone can live with, right? I’ve read so much bullshit from “Does Kentucky have open carry?” I could really give a shit less. Maybe it’s because I don’t carry on a conversation with dog shit.

  14. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    “Mom’s demand action=New age Marxist version of the PTA…Hysterical house wives who AREN’T getting any action! I wonder why…?”

    1. avatar Iraqvet2003 says:

      Because no real man can stand to put up with their bitching.

  15. avatar MLee says:

    Those numbers look to be veto proof. Should the Governor veto the bill, it looks like they have enough to override it. Only a constitutional majority — or more than half of those elected — is needed in the 100-member House and the 38-member Senate to rebuke a governor who blocks all or parts of certain legislation.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      MLee,

      I cannot imagine Kentucky’s governor vetoing any such legislation.

  16. avatar possum says:

    Oh their just mad because no one invited them to the party

  17. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    May need to move to Kentucky, no one in the Texas has the balls to file and fight to pass the constitutional carry law here, so we stay under carpetbagger law. Didn’t realize we were that damned backward.

    1. avatar RMS1911 says:

      Yup Texas is mostly hype and tall stories to keep the suckers in line thinking they are a breed apart when they are basically new York with livestock.

    2. avatar balais says:

      Texas better find their balls, or they will go the way of california.

      The Beto Vs Cruz wrestlemania was *barely* a (R) victory. And I have my doubts anybody else but Cruz couldve won (unless somebody from texas can argue otherwise convincingly).

  18. avatar NJ2AZ says:

    friend of mine in OK (more of a lib, but not annoyingly so) said something about constitutional carry making its way through the process there, implying maybe it wasn’t a good idea. I told him they did it here in AZ and it was much ado about nothing. He actually seemed to listen. I believe my exact point was that with all the big money pushing gun control nowadays, you can bet your hide if permitless carry made things worse, they’d have (dubious) studies out the ass saying as much. I think the only one i’ve seen was one (of course dubious) study that implied things got a bit worse in Missouri.

  19. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Someone should let those Moms know. The sun will be out tomorrow la la la la…………..
    If we are lucky their world will end though.

  20. avatar sound awake says:

    they hate us
    and they want our guns
    all of them
    there can be no reconciliation
    there can be no bipartisanship
    the can be no compromise
    this world has always been still is and always will be governed in one way or another by the overwhelming use of force
    advantage: gun owners

  21. avatar SoBe says:

    I don’t recall reading anything in the Constitution about a right to wear a coat! I do recall reading something about a right that shall not be infringed to keep and bear arms. And, why did they mention both keep AND bear if the right did not intend that you walk out of your abode bearing arms.
    BTW, I don’t recall the mention of “shall not be infringed” in reference to Amendments I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, or XXVII.
    The phrase “shall not be denied or abridged” appears in XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI. But, who in their right mind would deny an eligible voter 18 years or age the right to vote? Why would we deny them their right to keep and bear arms?

    1. avatar SoBe, I really miss the edit option, but not to the point of a Red Flag says:

      Where oh where is my edit button? “Of,” not “or!”

  22. avatar Joe says:

    Hmm, so these mom hate the Second Amendment badly enough that they want to destroy it, but are enjoying the First Amendment to try and get rid of our Second? If these women hate it so badly, they should move to London. Not only do those folks NOT have any gun rights, they can feel safe in knowing that London has just surpassed New York City where the rate of crime rate is. But hey, moron women like her can feel safe in knowing no one can have scary looking guns.

  23. avatar 22winmag says:

    “This is how our state decided to mark that anniversary of the deadliest high school shooting in our nation’s history…”

    Hey lady, let me fix your effed up quote.

    “This is how our state decided to mark that anniversary of the deadliest high school HOAXED shooting in our nation’s history…”

    Whatever really went down is HELL AND GONE from whatever was reported. More holes and contradictions pound for pound than Sandy Hoax. Okay, trollfarms it’s time for my slings and arrows: http://mileswmathis.com/florida.pdf

  24. avatar J says:

    Kentucky’s original Constitution prohibited carrying concealed weapons from its inception due to the nature of the times. The Kentucky Constitution was modified to allow concealed carry, since it was originally an open carry state. So, it looks like you will be able to open and conceal carry. While most states do not have even open carry. Kentucky is different from others states involving firearms. It’s a constitutional open carry state from the state inception and open car carry in a vehicle either in plain view or in a glove box. A lot of states prohibit open car carry in all forms. Wished all of our states were like Kentucky involving firearm laws.

  25. avatar Bob999 says:

    If this group was really serious about their goals, they would have been there to express their point-of-view to the Senate before it voted. No, these “moms” are about political gamesmanship. They want this to play out in the National press. They want to convince the low information voter that freedom is wrong, that they must support an authoritarian state in order to feel safe. This is not about gun control, this is about people control.

  26. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

    Shouldn’t they all be home making sandwiches or pies for their husbands?

    Seriously, they are deluded and need to be stopped. Vote out every Democrat you can, primary every Republican possible until we get the right folks in place.

    1. avatar Joe says:

      Honestly, Patriot, that would include some RINO Republicans, as well. Sad to say, many of them are just as anti-gun, and anti-Second Amendment (guns for me, but not for thee) as their Demon Democrats are.

  27. avatar Moltar says:

    Love this law!! Hope it passes the house, but far as I know our House is out till at least Tuesday due to the President’s Day holiday. Now I’ve noticed some taking offense to the remark about coat decriminalization and I’m gonna address that; you see to get a permit here in KY is $75.00 + whatever the trainer charges IF you can find a trainer in your county since your county Sheriff signs off on it. Now in addition to the fees the class is 8 hours long. Taking those 2 restrictions alone away eases much of the burden for lower income individuals. Now as for the coat comment itself I believe the gentleman that said it was speaking mostly to his supporters who know open carry is indeed legal but should your untucked t shirt or coat somehow fall over your gun you are illegally carrying concealed even if 95% of the holster is visible. You cover just the grip by accident or by negligently readjusting your wardrobe and suddenly you’re a felon.

  28. avatar raptor jesus says:

    clutch them pearls

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email