|
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:
MA: AG copycat ban spurs rifle sales
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
State Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) filed a bill yesterday that would remove Healey’s authority to issue rules and regulations on firearm sales under the state’s consumer protection statute.
The proposed legislation would also prohibit any changes to the definition of assault weapons by administrative action. Healey’s office declined to comment on Tarr’s bill.
Tarr told the Herald last night: “We’re talking about constitutional rights here. All of us want to prevent gun manufacturers from circumventing the law, but all of us want to be sure that when we’re dealing with a constitutional right — like that afforded by the Second Amendment — that we do things properly.” |
Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/31/2016)
|
Everyone remember Prohibition?
They just don't get it, do they? |
|
|
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) |
|
|