|
|
|
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: Bill would legalize firearm suppressors in Massachusetts
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Forty-two states allow private ownership of firearm suppressors, but Massachusetts is not one of them. Ownership could become legal if lawmakers pass a bill filed by State Senator Don Humason (R-Westfield).
State Lawmakers are considering the bill that would remove a Massachusetts ban on firearm suppressors, or a device used to silence, muffle or diminish the noise of a firearm.
Second amendment advocates said the move would protect the hearing of firearm safety instructors and hunters. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(11/23/2017)
|
"...could be more victims in instances like this if guns are silenced."
COULD BE?
You can't attenuate liberty based upon "could be".
Democrats couldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
