A lawsuit against gun manufacturers brought by Mayor Giuliani in 2000 was dismissed today by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as the panel unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Two of the three judges also found that the city's public nuisance law did not create a legal exception to the federal law.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was designed to protect the gun industry from frivolous prosecution by liberal big-city mayors as they attempt to blame the device, rather than the socio-economic factors of their failed policies that create a rich source of criminals.
New York City attempted to undermine federal law by saying gun manufacturers were creating a "public nuisance" because they failed to monitor retail dealers in order to keep their wares out of criminal hands:
The essence of the complaint was that the suppliers failed to monitor: gun shows where non-licensed sellers sold weapons; private or "kitchen table" sellers who are not required to conduct background checks or keep records required of Federal Firearms Licensees; "straw purchases" by qualified handgun purchasers for those who are not qualified; multiple sales of guns; intentional illegal trafficking by corrupt licensees; theft from licensees with poor security or false reports of theft; and, in general the oversupply of guns to markets in jurisdictions that have lax gun regulations.
In other words, once the gun manufacturer had created the gun and transferred ownership of the merchandise to a legal owner, they failed to follow the gun through it's lifetime and make certain that each transfer was to a legal owner. This is absurd on the face of it.
But that won't stop Mayor Bloomberg from continuing his fight against evil inanimate objects. He will continue suing gun dealers across state lines, saying:
Regardless of this ruling, we will continue our fight against illegal guns full-bore — in the courtrooms, on the streets, and in Congress.
Big city liberals, driving up the prices of mid-America's beloved hobbies by abusing the justice system in pursuit of political gain. How stereotypical of them.
Writing for WaPo, Hunter does Heston right. Here's a taste:
He was the hawk.
He soared. In fact, everything about him soared. His shoulders soared, his cheekbones soared, his brows soared. Even his hair soared. . . .
Later in his life, he took that stance into politics, becoming president of the National Rifle Association just when anti-gun attitudes were reaching their peak. Pilloried and parodied, lampooned and bullied, he never relented, he never backed down, and in time it came to seem less an old star's trick of vanity than an act of political heroism. He endured, like Moses. He aged, like Moses. And the stone tablet he carried had only one commandment: Thou shalt be armed. It can even be said that if the Supreme Court in June finds a meaning in the Second Amendment consistent with NRA policy, that he will have died just short of the Promised Land -- like Moses.
Charles Lane, WaPo journalist and author of The Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, the Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction, penned a rather nice article last weekend on the necessity of an armed populace. Few events in our history illustrate the consequences of turning citizens into unarmed victims so well as the tragic outcome at Colfax in the aftermath of the Civil War, and Lane lends his expertise to the debate:
Nearly 135 years ago, the United States experienced what may have been the worst one-day slaughter of blacks by whites in its history. On April 13, 1873, in the tiny village of Colfax, La., white paramilitaries attacked a lightly armed force of freedmen assembled in a local courthouse. By the time the Colfax Massacre was over, more than 60 African American men lay shot, burned or stabbed to death. Most were killed after they had surrendered.
Though it caused a national sensation in post-Civil War America, this horrible incident has been largely overlooked by historians. It deserves fresh study today not only to illuminate the human cost of Reconstruction's defeat but also to enrich our understanding of constitutional history. Some of the most relevant lessons relate to the issue at the heart of District of Columbia v. Heller, the case on the D.C. gun control law currently before the Supreme Court: whether the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.
During oral arguments on Tuesday, the justices debated what the framers of the Second Amendment intended. The members of the court did not mention Reconstruction. Yet during this period, we the people gave the Union a second "founding" through constitutional amendments abolishing slavery, granting blacks citizenship and enabling them to vote. And, to clarify blacks' newly secured freedom, Congress wrote laws identifying the specific rights of individual U.S. citizens. One of these was the right to have guns. . . .
In the D.C. gun case, the Supreme Court should find that local governments may enact reasonable and necessary restrictions on dangerous weapons. To be sure, if the justices also back an individual right to keep and bear arms, that will be harder for legislators to do. But as a matter of historical interpretation, the court would be correct.
That gun control grew out of Jim Crow laws is well known. That black Americans now accept these laws and even support them is an outrage.
Equally outrageous, however, is this paragraph that mars what would otherwise be a great article:
Firearms pose threats to modern-day urban dwellers -- crime, suicide, accidents -- that may outweigh any self-defense they provide. Unlike 19th-century rural Americans, we can call on professional police.
Herein is the siren song of the gun control lobby. The thought of being protected by a benevolent force for good is a powerful concept, and one that we are taught to believe by our parents ("If you get lost just ask a policeman for help. They can be trusted.").
But the truth is that our police forces are stretched too thin in these troubled times, and they cannot be everywhere. In fact, all too often they cannot be where they are needed in time. Otherwise, why would rapes, violent assaults and murders continue to happen?
But the real bottom line is that my right to self protection comes from a higher power than the nanny state, no matter how many policemen they employ. Lane should remember than.
"That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. [NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John] Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn’t use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.
So the NAACP says that gun rights was only so southern states could protect slavery. Yet they also often and loudly decry Jim Crow laws, part of which was the deliberate and targeted removal of guns from southern blacks so they could defend themselves.
I guess consistency isn't something we can expect on this issue.
U.S. Senator John McCain today issued the following statement on District of Columbia v. Heller:
Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on District of Columbia v. Heller, a landmark case for all Americans who believe as I do that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. I am proud to have joined in an amicus brief to the Court calling for a ruling in keeping with the clear intent of our Founding Fathers, which ensures the Second Amendment rights of the residents of District of Columbia are reaffirmed.
Damn it. Just when I think the man's is totally useless, he comes out and does something good. Of course, I still don't trust him.
But, as I said before, the ruling will leave lots of room for interpretation as to exactly what "common sense gun laws" really means.
The Economist thinks even a narrow ruling could have significant ramifications:
One can rarely be sure what the nine Supreme Court judges are thinking, but there were several hints that at least some of them think the second amendment protects what Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing vote, calls “a general right to bear arms”. If a majority agrees, the DC gun ban, which is the nation's strictest, will probably be struck down.
But the court's ruling, which may not come for weeks, will probably be quite narrow. Mr Roberts, for one, prefers to rule narrowly whenever possible. Too wide a decision would threaten every gun curb in the country, perhaps even the national ban on machineguns. But even a narrow ruling could affect similar bans in other cities, like New York.
AccurateShooter.com agrees:
Most legal observers, including our correspondent, Robert Whitley, believe there will be at least 5 votes to overturn the D.C. ban. Whitley cautions however: “I think there will be a recognition of the individual right, and the D.C. ban will probably be invalidated, at least in its current form. But this isn’t the end of the controversy… there will be many more battles ahead. The court will likely try to decide the case narrowly, and many of the justices seem to favor some kind of ‘reasonableness’ test for gun laws that will only lead to more legal challenges in the months and years ahead.”
Reason's Hit & Run has relevant quotes to show that at least four are on board with the individual rights concept (John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy), and adds:
Clarence Thomas, as is his wont, did not say anything during the oral arguments. But if any justice could be counted on to support a Second Amendment that imposes significant restraints on gun control, it would be him. Thomas is an avowed "original intent" jurist, and the contemporaneous evidence on the meaning of the Second Amendment, as demonstrated in the respondent and amicus briefs (not to mention the appeals court decision overturning D.C.'s gun ban), strongly favors the view that it is about more than state militias.
Here's an interesting post by Sua Sponte (A Blog by GW Law Students) in which one student details his experience from camping out to be in line to hearing the case. One bit:
So of the hearing, the things that surprised me were that Justice Thomas napped (he asked two questions in the beginning, proceeded to rock in his chair, then napped for a while, then resumed rocking), that the lawyers didn’t seem comfortable speaking (one stuttered a lot at the beginning), and that the lawyers interrupted Justice Ginsburg.
Black Bear Blog analyzes the transcript and concludes:
Lawyers on all sides revealed why the Second Amendment is a difficult one because it is packed with emotion-filled beliefs and arguments, neither side daring to stand firmly in its position.
Our society has become so politically correct that I believe this played a certain role in how far each lawyer was willing to stick his neck out.
Reason Online explains why D.C. vs. Heller is about self defense, and says that it's really a civil rights case.
Iranian Ajax notes the irony:
You know what is funny? The fact that these liberals at the ACLU are screaming with their head on fire because the NSA wiretaps are eroding the constitution. Yet their own view on the constitution are eroding the constitution. Hmmmm.
Funny how the NRA that supports the preservation of the Constitution is demonized, but the ACLU that supports the same thing is not….hmmm. Irony.
The NY Sun says that the Supreme Court "seem set to rule for gun rights":
During oral arguments yesterday in what is the first Second Amendment case to reach the federal high court in 70 years, enough justices seemed inclined to go with the individual rights interpretation to suggest that a majority will adopt that view when a decision comes down, likely during the summer. . . .
Justice Kennedy, often the court's swing vote, said that, "in my view," the Second Amendment provides "a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia."
Alan Korwin (co-author of Supreme Court Gun Cases) agrees (ht to Say Uncle):
The bottom line is, I think we’re going to be OK.
When Justice Kennedy flat out said he believes in an individual right under the Second Amendment, there were no gasps in the hush of the High Court, but you could tell the greatest stellar array of gun-rights experts ever assembled, all there in that one room, breathed a sigh of relief -- we had five votes to affirm the human and civil right to arms.
Excellent analysis, read it all.
Gun Legislation & Politics in New York, who predicts a 6-3 or possibly even a 7-2 win for gun rights, has a YouTube video of the interview with Brady Campaign CEO Paul Helmke immediately after the oral arguments. In part:
Bottom line, though, is I feel strongly that the justices are going to allow reasonable gun restrictions. They even discussed at one point having registration and licensing and got some concessions from the plaintiff's attorneys that some licensing might make sense. That some restrictions on machine guns make sense, restrictions on armor piercing bullets make sense, that background checks make sense. A lot of elected officials haven't bought into that point so to have the court come down and say that reasonable regulations and reasonable restrictions make sense, that's a good thing for common sense gun control.
And that is what I think is going to happen.
Yes, individual rights will be upheld. But the door will be left gaping open on the "common sense gun laws" and "reasonable gun control". Neither side will have a clear victory, although the Right to Keep and Bear Arms will come out slightly better.
But this war won't be over, folks. Not by a long shot.
For those of you who want to know what the heck all the fuss is about, Wall Street Journal has a great overview for the layman. (Update: the unabridged version of this article appears on The Volokh Conspiracy, via Say Uncle).
Ah, the invalidity of online polls. You just know this is killing the liberal journalists at USA Today.
Go here to take the poll yourself.
Update: Monday evening with over 26,000 votes and now the poll is running 99% to 1%. Power to the people!
Click on the picture below to hear the recording of the 911 call from a Pasadena, Texas man when he called the cops about two burglars breaking into his neighbors house. For those of you who haven't heard about this, you can read the news story. In part:
He grabbed a 12-gauge shotgun and called 911, Lambright said.
"Uh, I've got a shotgun," he told the dispatcher. "Uh, do you want me to stop them?"
"Nope, don't do that," the dispatcher responded. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"
Horn and the dispatcher spoke for several minutes, during which Horn pleaded with the dispatcher to someone to catch the men and vowed not to let them escape. Over and over, the dispatcher told him to stay inside. Horn repeatedly said he couldn't.
When the men crawled back out the window carrying a bag, Horn began to sound increasingly frantic.
"Well, here it goes, buddy," Horn said as a shell clicked into the chamber. "You hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going."
A few seconds passed.
"Move," Horn can be heard saying on the tape. "You're dead."
Boom.
Click.
Boom.
Click.
Boom.
Horn redialed 911 and told the dispatcher what he'd done.
"I had no choice," he said, his voice shaking. "They came in the front yard with me, man. I had no choice. Get somebody over here quick."
There is all kinds of debating going on about whether this guy was right to do what he did, so I might as well add my voice.
A 61-year-old retiree willing to confront two young thugs is no coward. You can hear in his voice that he doesn't want to go out, but that he feels compelled to. He's had enough of thievery and people hiding scared in their houses. He takes action.
God bless him.
As to the validity of the shoot. He warned them, "Move [and] you're dead." They advanced on him. He shot. That sounds like a good shoot, although exact logistics need to be determined (there was an awfully long pause between the second and third shot). Horn's attorney is, of course, claiming self defense.
As to the circumstances. The castle doctrine in Texas was recently expanded precisely because the citizens of Texas were tired of rampant crime. This is the zeitgeist in which this incident takes place. That is important in determining state of mind.
As to Joe's actions. The most foolish thing he did is tell the 911 dispatcher that he was going to go outside to kill those two guys. This denotes premeditated intent. If I were sitting on the jury, however, I would take it a different way: I think Joe was trying to tell himself that he would be capable of such a thing if it became necessary, to hype himself up. You can hear the trepidation, if not real fear, in his voice as he prepares to go outside to do what is right.
Bottom line: a citizen tries to stop a crime. That is not only the purview of the police, but the duty of every citizen. When this citizen attempted to stop two men from committing wrong, they charged him and he felt his life was in danger. He shot.
God bless him.
Joe will have to live with this the rest of his days. I'm glad it wasn't me. But at this point, I'm equally glad there are citizens like Joe Horn willing to stand up for right.
Tennessee's Narcotics Officer of the Year for 2006 was charged with taking regular payments from drug dealers and selling anabolic steroids:
Some two dozen Memphis police officers have been indicted for public corruption since 2004, but Valentine's arrest is particularly troubling to officials because he also held supervisory duties.
According to an affidavit, Valentine received regular payments from drug dealers for three years in exchange for assisting the movement of one marijuana shipment per month. The arrangement ended in 2000 when one of the traffickers' associates was arrested.
An informant said Valentine also worked with him in the spring and summer of this year in buying and distributing anabolic steroids.
Bad people are found in almost any job, including those who pledge to protect and serve. Yet they remain trusted by the public, a sentiment I don't understand. Yes, most cops are good people, just as are most politicians. But I won't trust a cop with my life any more than I trust a politician with my bank account information.
Remembering that all politics are local, join your state gun rights organization, whether you get a carry permit or not. Keep the criminals guessing as to who may be armed. Because you never know who the criminals are, and may not find out until it's too late.
The mayor who tried to sue gun manufacturers out of existence, supported draconian gun control laws as recently as 2004 and once said the NRA was an "extremist" organization. Now, as a Republican presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani claims a change of heart:
He no longer argues, as gun control advocates do, that the right to bear arms applies only to the rights of states to maintain citizen militias. He now says that right also applies to individuals as well, and he cites the court ruling, Parker v. District of Columbia, that said the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own handguns.
In the 1990s, he lobbied Congress to ban assault weapons. Now, aides have said it's not clear he would support such a ban.
"Not clear"? What's not clear is what Rudy would do as president. Oh wait, yes it is. He would back an assault weapons ban, just as his liberal heart has directed him to do in the past.
The UK Times claims that a government study is about to be released which shows that knife-point robberies have doubled in the past two years. On average, there were 175 knife robberies a day in England and Wales last year.
And remember, not only do most crimes go unreported (up to 70%), the authorities cook the books when it comes to crime statistics.
One citizen has a three-prong approach to the problem:
Who would feel comfortable in a nation like that? Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, and more than a few anti-gun liberals that I know. [Look Ma, they still grow fascists in England!]
After all, outlawing guns did sooooo much good in reducing gun crime. Oh wait, it didn't.
The UK Guardian prints a three part series written by British author Andrew Anthony. In the day reality hit home, Anthony describes how the attack of 11 September 2001 began him on a journey from "committed member of the liberal left" to a new realization of the world, as he began to question everything from the liberal left's anti-Americanism to basic assumptions about race, crime and terror.
The articles are extracts from his new book [The Fall-Out: How a guilty liberal lost his innocence, available next month]. Although Anthony's articles cover a range of topics, I find his realization that something is wrong on the streets of Britain the most compelling. From part 2:
Empiricism and emotion are never more uncomfortable bed partners than in the matter of crime. Figures in Britain, for example, suggest that crime is going down but at the same time the chance of being a victim of crime appears to have gone up. Also crimes that directly affect people, the kinds of incidents that dramatically change our perception of danger, such as rape, street robberies and gun crime, have been increasing. In the 10 years between 1995 and 2005, serious woundings rose by 50 per cent in England and Wales. And it is estimated that up to 70 per cent of violent crime goes unreported. Perhaps this is because victims have little confidence in gaining justice, as the conviction rate for these crimes has been falling. According to Home Office figures for 2006, only 9.7 per cent of all 'serious woundings' reported to the police led to a successful conviction. For robberies the figure is 8.9 per cent and for rape, it's 5.5 per cent. In any case, few would dispute that there is an increased anxiety about crime and much of it, I think, is a reflection of waning communal relations, seen most starkly, but far from exclusively, between adults and youths.
For years, the British authorities played games with how crime statistics were calculated. Now that they've been found out and the public is demanding the truth, the statistics are disconcerting. For instance, how can gun crime be increasing on an island which has such strict gun laws?
It's a surprise to liberals, but comes as no surprise to those of us who know that taking guns out of the hands of the law-abiding citizens does little more than disarm the innocent.
Yeah, I know, the post title is a bit of a "duh!" moment. But to bash an red-blooded American on national television when he doesn't know anything about the guy except that he owns a scary looking weapon?
Joe Biden brags that he authored the "assault weapons" ban and thinks an American gun owner "should have his head examined".
HT to Michelle Malkin on Townhall.
Ohio state Rep. Michael DeBose, a Democrat from Cleveland, voted against concealed carry twice, but it became law in 2004. He had the opportunity to regret that decision one evening when two men confronted him just yards from his front door. One pulled out a silver gun and began running towards him. DuBose's response was definitive:
"At first I just backed up, but then I turned around and started running and screaming."
DeBose was lucky this time; his screaming attracted the attention of neighbors, porch lights started coming on and the would-be muggers gave up the chase and drove away. But he's not taking any more chances, and talks about his vote:
"I was wrong," he said Friday.
"I'm going to get a permit and so is my wife.
"I've changed my mind. You need a way to protect yourself and your family.
"I don't want to hurt anyone. But I never again want to be in the position where I'm approached by someone with a gun and I don't have one."
Sometimes it takes a confrontation with the devil to make a man seek God. And sometimes it takes being a victim of the stupidity of our politicians to make a liberal realize that guns aren't the problem.
At least this disarmed victim gets a second chance at life, and this politician is honest enough to admit that he has learned a valuable lesson:
"There are too many people who are just evil and mean-spirited. They will hurt you for no reason. If more people were packing guns, it might serve as a deterrent."
The NRA couldn't have put it any better.
HT to Front Sight, Press.
Found in the comments section of a post by No Looking Backwards:
9-1-1. Gives the wife something to do while I'm reloading...
Heh.
I spent the first part of the week in Atlanta at a conference and, once there, discovered that my laptop was having severe problems. So I missed a lot of news this week and certainly didn't have the opportunity to blog anything.
The big story in these parts was the Tennessean's irresponsible decision to publish the full list of permit holders in Tennessee. Les Jones has a nice wrap-up of the story (ht to Bill Hobbs), which includes this bit:
Andrew Sullivan asks, "If gun rights are civil rights, why would anyone feel the need to hide the fact that they own one?" To which Glenn Reynolds responds, in part, "But I'll turn the question around: If abortion is a civil right, why would anyone object to having a newspaper publish a searchable database of people who've had one?"
Les goes on to list some of the things that somehow enables the state to prevent a citizen from exercising a God-given right enshrined in our Constitution (my phrasing, not his). Les' point is that permit holders are the most law abiding group of citizens possible, reminding that:
A Texas study found that CCW holders in that state were "5.7 times less likely to commit a violent crime, and 14 times less likely to commit a non-violent offense."
The Tennessean's excuse for publishing the list of permit holders was a story about legislation moving through the system that will allow carrying in parks (ht to Bill Hobbs). My sources say that the bill has been rolled to next week and will pass out of committee at that time.
This is fairly controversial legislation, as shown in Mediaverse's paradoxical post:
No, gun control won't deter someone committed to kill. But, I'm not in favor of letting people go to parks packing heat.
I will bet that Mediaverse (and all like thinkers) don't have any problem with off-duty police officers carrying guns in parks. Yet police have higher rates of suicide, divorce, domestic violence, depression, and alcohol and drug abuse than the general population, and far higher rates than the population of CCW holders that are subjected to an extensive background check.
This is not a slam on cops — far from it. It is generally recognized that cops, ER nurses, firefighters, and so on all have these problems as a result of an incredibly high-stress job that often leads to PTSD and usually affects the entire family. I have the highest respect for those that make that kind of life sacrifice.
But why do liberals, RINOs and the general public trust one gun-toting guy over another just because he has a badge, when the facts clearly demonstrate that the concerned citizen is a much safer bet?
Well, not exactly, but they're sure acting like they want to.
In defiance of state law, the Philadelphia city council has unanimously passed eight gun control laws. Hat tip to Right Wing Prof, who posts:
The Philadelphia City Council bozos passed gun control legislation in direct violation of the state constitution, with full knowledge that it was in direct violation of the state constitution . . .
But wait, because it gets better. These bozos are filing a lawsuit against the state because the state constitution wont allow them to violate any liberty they want. I guess they don't understand why the state constitution exists.
I think it must be something in the water. Check out this bit of informed opinion from a Philadelphia media blogger:
Yesterday, City Council passed a long-delayed series of bills aimed at addressing gun violence. Philadelphia isn't allowed to make its own gun laws because the rest of the state's economy is approximately 100 percent based on hunting and every citizen owns 50 or 60 guns and buys 30 a day, just to melt them down for whatever the hell guns are made out of.
Yeah, I bought an eight hundred dollar gun that easily concealed on the belt. Because I want to melt it down.
Six million people and at least two million guns, yet the "gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept."
So reports BBC News:
But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.
Yep, the liberal BBC just gave conservatives another clue bat to bludgeon sense into gun grabbing liberals and RINOs. It's a great Monday.
Hat Tip to Digg.
A church is founded on the ministry, and here's one I like. 52-year-old Rev. Tim O'Leary is a fourth-degree black belt in karate, was a Houston police officer and has anti-terrorism training from the Israeli secret service.
As a self-defense expert, he teaches that violence, in some cases, is the only way to save your life.
"Violence is something that shouldn't be in society but it is," he said. "You have to be prepared to kill or maim to survive and to protect yourself and family."
Amen!
AllahPundit posts a video of an interview in which Tucker Carlson pinned down NY Representative Carolyn McCarthy, finally getting her to admit that her legislation calls for banning "barrel shrouds", and she admits that she has no idea what they are. (She even guesses wrong!)
Short and hilarious, except for the part where she perpetuates the liberal lie of "assault weapons" previously banned being the guns that were commonly used to kill police officers. That lie she got away with.
Hat Tip to non-blogging Advised by Wolves, via NRO, via InstaPundit, who also links to this post from Say Uncle. (Whew! This is all over the place!)
On the day after the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech, CNN poses a question on their web site. This screen shot was taken at 12:20 today (click image for full sized pop up).
The poll was gone by 2:15, but I thought that CNN polls usually stayed up a day. Why was this one taken down so soon?
In all the reactions and opinions being posted, I recommend Professor Judith Klinghoffer's post. It's a quick read.
Many of those bravely on patrol in Iraq and Afghanistan are under the age of 21. Many of our youth put their lives on the line for us every single day.
Yet Rep. Jackson-Lee of Texas has introduced federal legislation that would make it illegal for these brave men and women to own a handgun — or even the ammunition for a handgun.
Section 922(x) of title 1 of the United States Code currently reads:
(x)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile -
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.(2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess -
(A) a handgun; or
(B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun.
The Democrat gun-grabber from Texas wants to radically expand this to include "assault" weapons and big, bad magazines and to ban law-abiding, voting age adults from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
H. R. 256 reads (in part):
Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking `juvenile' and inserting `person who is less than 21 years of age';
(B) by striking `or' at the end of subparagraph (A);
(C) by striking the period at the end of