|
|
|
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: State must approve ‘red flag’ gun law
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Massachusetts is poised to become the latest state allowing relatives, other household members and romantic partners to initiate legal action that would temporarily remove guns from people considered a danger to themselves or others.
The House voted 139-14 in May to approve extreme risk protection orders — commonly known as a “red flag” gun bill — and the Senate passed its version by voice vote last week. We urge the Legislature to quickly resolve minor differences in the bills and send the legislation to Gov. Charlie Baker, who has signaled his support. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/15/2018)
|
| No, it mustn't. No law without due process BEFORE, not AFTER the fact. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
