|
|
|
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:
Maloney, Colleagues Reintroduce 3D Printed Gun Safety Act
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) on June 29 joined with Representatives Ted Deutch (D-FL), Bradley Schneider (D-IL), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), and Val B. Demings (D-FL) and Senators Edward J. Markey (D-MA) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) to reintroduce the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act, legislation to prohibit the online distribution of blueprints and instructions that allow for the three dimensional (3D) printing of firearms. Greek-American Congresswoman Dina Titus (NV-1) is also co-sponsoring the legislation along with her colleagues.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/30/2021)
|
Maloney rhymes with baloney.
Apparently facially unconstitutional incursions on the 1st Amendment are okay if the purpose is to eliminate the 2nd.
The fact that it won't work is beside the point; it is unconstitutional, full stop. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
