Comments on: Congrats to Joe http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/10/10/congrats-to-joe/ Firearms Policy and Politics in Pennsylvania Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:43:35 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: teqjack http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/10/10/congrats-to-joe/#comment-31226 teqjack Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:51:59 +0000 http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=5835#comment-31226 ``The nonpartisan organization FactCheck.org largely derided NRA's claims, but it did acknowledge that the proposed law could be read to permit a deer ammo ban. "We grant that it is a theoretical possibility that some future administration could interpret Kennedy's language as banning common hunting ammunition, despite Kennedy's clear statement of intent to the contrary," the group wrote. "But we judge the likelihood of that to be vanishingly small, given the outcry that would surely follow." `` Which is a good reason to stop it before it becomes law, since laws are so hard to get rid of. I remember the Governot of the State where I resided at the time actualy going on television to apologise for a law which turned out to apply to at least eight times as many people as (he claimed) had been intended. About thirty years ago. As far as I know, it is still on the books. (Where? OK, then-Gov. Dukakis of MAss. speaking about an expansion of the "old age pension" tax on restaurant patrons, which was "not meant" to apply to sit-down diners nor to alcoholic beverages - but did.) “The nonpartisan organization FactCheck.org largely derided NRA’s claims, but it did acknowledge that the proposed law could be read to permit a deer ammo ban.
“We grant that it is a theoretical possibility that some future administration could interpret Kennedy’s language as banning common hunting ammunition, despite Kennedy’s clear statement of intent to the contrary,” the group wrote. “But we judge the likelihood of that to be vanishingly small, given the outcry that would surely follow.” “

Which is a good reason to stop it before it becomes law, since laws are so hard to get rid of. I remember the Governot of the State where I resided at the time actualy going on television to apologise for a law which turned out to apply to at least eight times as many people as (he claimed) had been intended. About thirty years ago. As far as I know, it is still on the books. (Where? OK, then-Gov. Dukakis of MAss. speaking about an expansion of the “old age pension” tax on restaurant patrons, which was “not meant” to apply to sit-down diners nor to alcoholic beverages – but did.)

]]>