This doesn't sound right!


PDA






LAR-15
April 30, 2006, 10:23 PM
`(C)(i) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the United States or a State or a department or agency of the United States, or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, of a junk gun; or

`(ii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in clause (i) of a junk gun for law enforcement purposes (whether on or off-duty);

`(D) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of a junk gun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off-duty); or


:uhoh:

If you enjoyed reading about "This doesn't sound right!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
oneslowgun
May 1, 2006, 12:58 AM
Ahhh.... Huh? :confused:

Elmer Snerd
May 1, 2006, 01:43 AM
More background, please.

Sinsaba
May 1, 2006, 08:36 AM
It of course looks like one of those anti-"Saturday Night Special" laws. But usually the police are exempt. Unless of course it is some UN anti gun thing.

hso
May 1, 2006, 08:48 AM
LAR-15, what is this about?

cloudedice
May 1, 2006, 09:57 AM
It's from a bill introduced into the Senate in 1997, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It never made it out of committee. Also the section quoted was prefaced by "(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--"

Here's the text of the actual bill.
American Handgun Standards Act of 1997 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:S.70.IS:)

LAR-15
May 1, 2006, 08:15 PM
Just the whole term 'junk gun' and allowing police to have them seemed weird

cloudedice
May 1, 2006, 09:08 PM
IANAL, but my guess is that the provision was put in place to allow police to confiscate 'junk guns' without violating the law. This would be included in the "law enforcement purposes."

CSA 357
May 1, 2006, 09:31 PM
:confused: say that again:confused:

cloudedice
May 1, 2006, 10:48 PM
My original guess was that the quoted text of the bill was included to allow police and government agencies to confiscate guns they classify as 'junk guns.'

My thinking was 'how can an LEO confiscate, and therefore be in possession of, a gun which is illegal for a person to possess?' My thinking was further backed up, by specifying that the LEO must only possess or be transferred the gun for "law enforcement duties."

I don't know if this is the reason or not, but it sure makes sense to me. Also I'm pretty sure the AWB had a similar provision, but I don't feel like looking up the text right now.

If you enjoyed reading about "This doesn't sound right!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!