wheelgun
NES Member
I own a car. I don't HAVE to have a car, but I chose to purchase one. I couldn't buy just any car, it had to be one whose design has been tested and meets safety standards set by the federal government. My car is inspected every year by the State of Massachusetts to ensure it continues to meet those standards, in an effort to protect public safety.
I own firearms. I don't HAVE to have firearms, but I chose to purchase them. I couldn't buy just any firearms, I'm only allowed to buy those which meet safety standards defined by the State of Massachusetts. In addition, they have to meet EXTRA stringent safety requirements defined by the Attorney General, the specifics of which are so critical they're not even allowed to be published for the general public to see.
Like many firearm owners, I find the State approved firearms I purchased are damaging my health. Over the years I've lost some hearing due to the loud report from both handguns and rifles. I was fully aware of this as it was happening, but I had no recourse. I wear hearing protection, but it has limitations and is really a bandaid, intended to divert attention from the source of the problem. Unlike 80% of the states in the country, Massachusetts bans the device that would have prevented my hearing loss - the simple suppressor, analogous to a muffler on a car.
This is hard to fathom, given the State's extreme concern for consumer safety in the operation of every other product, as manifested in the thousands of regulations that exist today. Exhaust sound from cars, motorcycles, commericial equipment, etc. must all meet state safety standards.
The State is jeopardizing and damaging citizen's hearing due to the ban of the use of supressors. Effectively the State of Massachusetts is prohibiting the use of a safety device that is approved in 80% of the country.
We should be able to successfully sue the State on this basis. To ban a device that affords consumers an extra level of safety is unheard of elsewhere in the retail or commercial market. Imagine if Massachusetts ruled tomorrow that seatbelts were illegal, or that safety goggles were illegal.
I want to sue the State of Massachusetts on these grounds. To quote my cousin Vinny,
"Does the prosecution's case hold water?"
I own firearms. I don't HAVE to have firearms, but I chose to purchase them. I couldn't buy just any firearms, I'm only allowed to buy those which meet safety standards defined by the State of Massachusetts. In addition, they have to meet EXTRA stringent safety requirements defined by the Attorney General, the specifics of which are so critical they're not even allowed to be published for the general public to see.
Like many firearm owners, I find the State approved firearms I purchased are damaging my health. Over the years I've lost some hearing due to the loud report from both handguns and rifles. I was fully aware of this as it was happening, but I had no recourse. I wear hearing protection, but it has limitations and is really a bandaid, intended to divert attention from the source of the problem. Unlike 80% of the states in the country, Massachusetts bans the device that would have prevented my hearing loss - the simple suppressor, analogous to a muffler on a car.
This is hard to fathom, given the State's extreme concern for consumer safety in the operation of every other product, as manifested in the thousands of regulations that exist today. Exhaust sound from cars, motorcycles, commericial equipment, etc. must all meet state safety standards.
The State is jeopardizing and damaging citizen's hearing due to the ban of the use of supressors. Effectively the State of Massachusetts is prohibiting the use of a safety device that is approved in 80% of the country.
We should be able to successfully sue the State on this basis. To ban a device that affords consumers an extra level of safety is unheard of elsewhere in the retail or commercial market. Imagine if Massachusetts ruled tomorrow that seatbelts were illegal, or that safety goggles were illegal.
I want to sue the State of Massachusetts on these grounds. To quote my cousin Vinny,
"Does the prosecution's case hold water?"
Last edited: