|
|
|
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: Middleborough Gun Shop Owner Defies Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker’s Order To Close, Cites Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A Middleborough gun shop owner is defying Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker’s ban on gun shops during the coronavirus emergency, instead offering curbside service to customers similar to the way restaurants are offering takeout food to customers.
“This thing with the governor, all the rest of the country, most gun shops are open. This governor, his plan is to shut down the gun shops, not because the spread of the pandemic, it’s all about taking away our rights. It’s all about preventing the sales of guns,” said John Costa, owner of The Gunrunner, of Midddleborough, according to MassLive.com. |
| Comment by:
AMMDOG
(4/25/2020)
|
| I live a few miles from The Gunrunner. This guy has a "pair" as he is the only LGS I know of willing to openly defy the hacks who have closed all gun related businesses in MA in the name of "public health". I hope everyone in MA supports this guy as I expect he's going to have a rough road ahead of him. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
