|
|
|
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:
MN: Minnesota Senate makes surprise turn to legalize gun silencers
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Minnesota's Senate added language to a bill Thursday that would legalize gun silencers — a surprise development as majority Democrats had shown little interest in changing the state's gun laws and a direct challenge to Gov. Mark Dayton's promise that such a measure would meet his veto pen.
The silencer language was added to a grab bag of policy changes that would also mandate external investigations for officer-involved deaths, set ground rules for law enforcement's use of drones and restore voting rights to felons after they're released from prison. |
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(4/24/2015)
|
I'll continue to urge we all use "attenuator", "suppressor" or "muffler" instead of "silencer" when referring to these devices. The term "Silencer" was Mr. Maxim's branding. Unfortunately it was seized upon by every dime fiction writer and hollywood movie director in need of plot magic. (We've all seen B movie perps with "silencers" on a revolver getting a teeny "pop" when they kill someone). The general public still believes this fiction and many other gun-related ones.
But most importantly suppressors address a chronic public health issue, "progressive hearing loss" stemming from the high noise level environments most of us inhabit. Suppressors also make shooters nice neighbors by keeping most of the range noise contained. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
