|
|
|
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: Massachusetts Measure Would Ban All Semi-Auto Firearms
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Massachusetts citizens who believe their state has ridiculously restrictive gun laws haven’t yet seen just how bad it can really get.
A new measure before the state legislature—H. 4038—would ban not only Massachusetts residents’ favorite old Browning semi-automatic .22-caliber small-game rifles, but also the semi-automatic shotguns they own for hunting, clay shooting, or self-defense.
Authored by state Rep. David Linsky (D), the legislation would rewrite Massachusetts’ already-strict ban on so-called “assault weapons.” In a nutshell, the bill strikes all references to “assault weapons” in the current law and inserts in that place “any rifle or shotgun containing a semi-automatic mechanism.” |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
