|
|
|
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: Plan to Seize Guns Hits Opposition
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Massachusetts gun owners could have their firearms taken under a controversial plan to keep weapons out of the hands of people with mental illness or who are deemed dangerous. The legislation, if approved, would allow police, health care workers, family members and others to ask a judge to issue an “extreme risk protection order” allowing police to revoke the firearms license, for up to a year, of someone considered a danger to themselves or others. Police could seize firearms belonging to that person, as well.
|
| Comment by:
dasing
(4/19/2017)
|
| NOT without due process!! |
| Comment by:
laker1
(4/19/2017)
|
| The old Soviet Union loved to have people declared mentally ill also. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
