|
|
|
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:
UPS moves to stop carrying shipments of firearms suppressors
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Industry groups are working with United Parcel Service to reverse its recent decision to no longer ship registered Title II suppressors, even in cases where the items are going from dealer to dealer.
UPS, commonly also referred to as Brown, is the world’s largest package delivery service and has its headquarters in Georgia. However, among its more than 15 million packages delivered each day will no longer be suppressors, apparently over concerns of compliance issues. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(5/18/2015)
|
While I would like to give UPS the benefit of the doubt, the statement published by its spokesperson vis a vis is "policies" put that in grave jeopardy. His documented use of the term "silencer" as justification is false to fact. Firearms "silencers" don't exist ! At best, with specially-designed arms and ammunition, they can only be accurately described as 'high-efficientcy sound suppressors'. They in no way equate to "suppressors"
in common use that attenuate noise associate with 'muzzle blast' common to any firearm.
The UPS position poses grave implications for interstate commerce. Can UPS - or any other shipper - ban shipping of machine tools, or tooling because they may be used to manufacture firearms/accessories ? |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
