PDA

View Full Version : House bill to ban handguns for those under 21


rayra
01-29-2009, 10:28 AM
FFLs are already constrained from selling handguns and pistol-gripped shotguns to anyone under 21.
But Federal and most State laws allow the ownership of same by <21yr olds, by dint of gift or face-to-face transfers.
This bill seeks to "close that loophole" and you can see from perusing the bill that it's far-reaching / intrusive as hell, seeking to regulate every possible aspect / avenue.



Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

HR 257 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 257

To prevent children's access to firearms.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 7, 2009

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To prevent children's access to firearms.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. INCREASING YOUTH GUN SAFETY BY RAISING THE AGE OF HANDGUN ELIGIBILITY AND PROHIBITING YOUTH FROM POSSESSING SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Section 922(x) of title 18, United States Code, is amended末

(1) in paragraph (1)末

(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 subparagraph (B) and inserting a semicolon; and

(D) by adding at the end the following:

`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or

`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.';

(2) in paragraph (2)末

(A) by striking `a juvenile' and inserting `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 subparagraph (B) and inserting a semicolon; and

(D) by inserting at the end the following:

`(C) a semiautomatic assault weapon; or

`(D) a large capacity ammunition feeding device.';

(3) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting `temporary' before `possession';

(4) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking `juvenile' and inserting `person who is less than 21 years of age';

(5) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking `juvenile; or' and inserting `person who is less than 21 years of age;';

(6) by striking subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) and inserting the following:

`(D) the possession of a handgun or ammunition by a person who is less than 21 years of age taken in defense of that person or other persons against an intruder into the residence of that person or a residence in which that person is an invited guest; or';

(7) by adding at the end of paragraph (3) the following:

`(E) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a person who is at least 18 years of age and less than 21 years of age, or the temporary use or possession of a handgun or ammunition by a person who is at least 18 years of age and less than 21 years of age, if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the person末

`(i) in the course of employment, in the course of ranching or farming related to activities at the residence of the person (or on property used for ranching or farming at which the person, with the permission of the property owner or lessee, is performing activities related to the operation of the farm or ranch), target practice, hunting, or a course of instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun; and

`(ii) in accordance with State and local law.'; and

(8) in paragraph (4), by striking `juvenile' each place it appears and inserting `person who is less than 21 years of age'.

SEC. 3. ENHANCED PENALTY FOR YOUTH POSSESSION OF HANDGUNS AND SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS AND FOR THE TRANSFER OF SUCH WEAPONS TO YOUTH.

Section 924(a)(6) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(6)(A) A juvenile who violates section 922(x) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and for a second or subsequent violation, or for a first violation committed after an adjudication of delinquency or after a State or Federal conviction for an act that, if committed by an adult, would be a serious violent felony (as defined in section 3559(c) of this title), shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

`(B) A person other than a juvenile who knowingly violates section 922(x)末

`(i) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and

`(ii) if the person sold, delivered, or otherwise transferred a handgun, ammunition, semiautomatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device to a person who is less than 21 years of age knowing or having reasonable cause to know that such person intended to carry or otherwise possess or discharge or otherwise use the handgun, ammunition, semiautomatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device in the commission of a crime of violence, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.'.

SEC. 4. GUN STORAGE AND SAFETY DEVICES FOR ALL FIREARMS.

(a) Secure Gun Storage or Safety Devices by Federal Firearms Licensees- Section 922(z) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ...

JDay
01-29-2009, 10:41 AM
"SEC. 2. INCREASING YOUTH GUN SAFETY BY RAISING THE AGE OF HANDGUN ELIGIBILITY AND PROHIBITING YOUTH FROM POSSESSING SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS." needs to be replaced with something more sensible, like this.

SEC. 2. INCREASING YOUTH GUN SAFETY BY PROMOTING THE SAFE USE OF FIREARMS.

deleted by PC police
01-29-2009, 10:43 AM
Mrs Jackson Lee is a real piece of work, You should see some of the crap she introduces.

nick
01-29-2009, 10:48 AM
It's interesting who they consider kids. Anyone under 21... I had 7 years of employment history and was a squad leader at just under 21. They call that a kid?

DDT
01-29-2009, 11:11 AM
It's interesting who they consider kids. Anyone under 21... I had 7 years of employment history and was a squad leader at just under 21. They call that a kid?

no, THEY call that an evil tool of the military industrial complex. I call that a patriot.

GP3
01-29-2009, 11:14 AM
Do you have a link to this?

DDT
01-29-2009, 11:18 AM
Do you have a link to this?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.257:

EBWhite
01-29-2009, 11:56 AM
I like how you can be a juvenile at 20 for handgun purchase purposes...but an 18 yo can go to adult jail???

Sam .223
01-29-2009, 3:41 PM
how can you be considered a juvenile if you're over 18 but under 21? at 18 you're allowed to vote, you have to serve jury duty when called, and you have to pay taxes, what gives? maybe they should be excempt from all of the above then to make them juveniles.

KWA-S
01-29-2009, 9:25 PM
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

How did she get voted in again?

deldgeetar
01-29-2009, 9:29 PM
How did she get voted in again?

The same way Nevada keeps electing Harry Reid. A bunch of Californians infecting other areas with their liberalism when they move.:mad:

bbbppc
01-30-2009, 7:24 AM
yeah that makes no sense, you can join the military handle explosives and BIG guns at 18 but as a civilian you are not to be trusted. Same with drinking, you can go fight a war but if you want a beer and your 20 too bad

nat
01-30-2009, 7:36 AM
The same way Nevada keeps electing Harry Reid. A bunch of Californians infecting other areas with their liberalism when they move.:mad:


Being 4th generation native to the Bay Area and even longer in California proper, I can say this is incorrect.

California may be liberal leaning, but the long time families were ALWAYS pro gun. It was all the *******s who moved here in the late 70's and 80's that ruined the state. Its those same people that moved from it.

There are a lot of pro-gun liberals, which means we support all the bill of rights, not just select parts, like conservatives and extremist liberals.

Racefiend
01-30-2009, 8:19 AM
How can they prohibit the possession of assault weapons when they aren't defined? I thought the only definition of an AW was in the AW ban, which is no longer a law?

johnny_22
01-30-2009, 8:28 AM
The good news is that MS JACKSON-LEE puts out a lot of 'feel-good" bills that appear to go nowhere. Enter "Jackson-Lee" in the Thomas search and take a look at the Noose hate law and other bills she has introduced.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c111query.html

dfletcher
01-30-2009, 8:46 AM
The good news is that MS JACKSON-LEE puts out a lot of 'feel-good" bills that appear to go nowhere. Enter "Jackson-Lee" in the Thomas search and take a look at the Noose hate law and other bills she has introduced.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/c111query.html

She's pandering for the home team it seems - all motion and no movement.

dfletcher
01-30-2009, 8:49 AM
If this goes through, any time someone 20 or under is injured, killed with a gun they'll be able to count them as one of "the children" as opposed to now restricting themselves to 17 & below?

jazman
01-30-2009, 9:03 AM
The same way Nevada keeps electing Harry Reid. A bunch of Californians infecting other areas with their liberalism when they move.:mad:

This is just BS. I'd like to see you go down to Texas and tell a bunch of Texans that people moving in from California are telling them what to do and electing their politicians for them. Good luck with that.

7x57
01-30-2009, 9:45 AM
If this goes through, any time someone 20 or under is injured, killed with a gun they'll be able to count them as one of "the children" as opposed to now restricting themselves to 17 & below?

They don't so restrict themselves anyway. The oft-quoted statistic about a gun in the home being forty-three times more likely to injure a family member than to be used in defense was cooked by, among other things (all IIRC, I know where to check but didn't bother), counting "children" as up to 25 years old and by counting gang-bangers who brought the gun with them as "children killed by guns in the home." :chris:

The reason for the fraud is simple. If you toss the teenage and older gang-bangers, the guns that didn't belong in the home in the first place, and so on, then suddenly *very few* children are killed by guns in the home. Pools and five-gallon buckets are far, far more risky, which demonstrates that this is not a problem in the first place. And I'd personally bet that there is a strong correlation with the few incidents we do have and dysfunctional families, so that once you toss out children that are basically unsupervised and undisciplined you'd get almost no accidents. But it would be politically incorrect to suggest that modern parenting and single-parent families and so on are risk factors (it might be possible to get away with saying that abusive families are risk-factors, which I suspect is true).

It *was* fraud, too much even for stereotypically anti-gun university faculties. I believe the researcher eventually resigned his position in disgrace. That, however, does not stop people from quoting the "forty-three times" figure anyway.

BTW, the ideological reason to harp on children and guns is quite simple: the time for children to learn to be safe and that guns are normal is when they are young, basically whenever daddy (or grandpa, or whoever is the competent experienced adult shooter and authority figure) decides that they are mature enough. (IMO no one but a close family member can make a safe and correct decision, least of all the government.) So the reason for lying about children and guns is to break the transmission of gun culture. It is no innocent mistake, it is quite deliberate.

7x57

7x57
01-30-2009, 9:46 AM
This is just BS. I'd like to see you go down to Texas and tell a bunch of Texans that people moving in from California are telling them what to do and electing their politicians for them. Good luck with that.

I moved here from Montana twenty years ago, and have visited since, and I can tell you that native Montanans are quite serious about there being a problem of Californians moving there and then voting for the same stupid things that happened in California. So I have no problem believing that Texans may feel the same--rural ones, anyway. At least some of the urban ones probably hope it happens.

7x57

Decoligny
01-30-2009, 9:50 AM
I like how you can be a juvenile at 20 for handgun purchase purposes...but an 18 yo can go to adult jail???

The law currently reads "juvenile" and applies to those UNDER 18.

They want to apply this law to everyone under 21 by striking `juvenile' and inserting `person who is less than 21 years of age'

So you can't be a juvenile at 20 for hangun purchase purposes.

AJAX22
01-30-2009, 10:10 AM
`(ii) if the person sold, delivered, or otherwise transferred a handgun, ammunition, semiautomatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device to a person who is less than 21 years of age knowing or having reasonable cause to know that such person intended to carry or otherwise possess or discharge or otherwise use the handgun, ammunition, semiautomatic assault weapon, or large capacity ammunition feeding device in the commission of a crime of violence, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.'.

Ummmmmm...... ????? Assault Weapons????

Philthy
01-30-2009, 10:13 AM
yeah that makes no sense, you can join the military handle explosives and BIG guns at 18 but as a civilian you are not to be trusted. Same with drinking, you can go fight a war but if you want a beer and your 20 too bad

Prior to the 70's (IIRC), the drinking age was up to the states. I think it still is. Places like Hawaii had 18, while others were 21. Congress used its spending power to get the states to raise the drinking age, citing highway safety (all they needed was a rational basis/reason). If the states didn't raise the drinking age, they wouldn't get highway funding. So the minimum age was raised to 21.

While I don't agree with the proposed piece of legislation, I agree with the drinking age. I never had a problem getting it. I don't think anyone has a problem getting it. I have no idea how old you are, but the bars would be ruined if they got swamped with 18 year olds. I have a hard enough time when the place is crammed with 21 year olds! Go to any college campus and all the 18-20 years drink. It's like training wheels before you join the big leagues.

I think some states in Australia tried lowering the drinking age and the kids went nuts. Like puke-and-piss-yourself-face-down-in-a-gutter-in-front-of-the-bar drunk. It was one thing back in the 70's when the drinking age was 18 because people knew how to handle it. To suddenly grant kids the right to booze overnight would be insane. I know I wouldn't have been able to handle it.

And true, you can vote and serve in the military at 18. 18 year olds can vote, which means that if kids actually voted in significant numbers, politicians would listen. But they don't.

Jack Straw from Wichita
01-30-2009, 10:19 AM
Ummmmmm...... ????? Assault Weapons????

Yeah, I noticed that too. Seems that Ms. Jackson-Lee is behind the times.

elSquid
01-30-2009, 10:53 AM
While I don't agree with the proposed piece of legislation, I agree with the drinking age. I never had a problem getting it. I don't think anyone has a problem getting it. I have no idea how old you are, but the bars would be ruined if they got swamped with 18 year olds. I have a hard enough time when the place is crammed with 21 year olds! Go to any college campus and all the 18-20 years drink. It's like training wheels before you join the big leagues.

I think some states in Australia tried lowering the drinking age and the kids went nuts. Like puke-and-piss-yourself-face-down-in-a-gutter-in-front-of-the-bar drunk. It was one thing back in the 70's when the drinking age was 18 because people knew how to handle it. To suddenly grant kids the right to booze overnight would be insane. I know I wouldn't have been able to handle it.

In Canada, depending on the province, the drinking age is either 18 or 19. It's not a problem. I don't understand your rationale that people in the 70's could responsibly drink at 18, and yet somehow now that's not the case.

Personally, I see no reason why college students shouldn't be allowed to go to the pub after class for a beer or hit the clubs on the weekend. It's part of the experience.

And a 19 year old who isn't in college - but has a job, and is a tax paying productive member of society - well, he's an adult. He has the right to make his own damn decisions. :thumbsup:

-- Michael

leitung
01-30-2009, 1:51 PM
I think we should pass a bill banning handguns from ultra liberal black senators from texas.. It's for the children....

HOW THE F**K DOES THIS DO ANYTHING TO MAKE US SAFER AGAIN? We should be lowering the age to 18, 18 to drink, 18 to drive, 18 to buy a handgun, 18 to be tried as an adult, 18 to smoke, 18..18..18..

This woman is a real piece of work... She needs to be thrown out of office, useless as two ti*s on a boar.

sfpcservice
01-30-2009, 5:16 PM
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-257

This bill is still in committee, hopefully won't survive.

GW
01-31-2009, 12:31 AM
Mrs Jackson Lee is a real piece of work, You should see some of the crap she introduces.

Its as though God put her anus under her nose.

Alaric
01-31-2009, 1:13 AM
This is just BS. I'd like to see you go down to Texas and tell a bunch of Texans that people moving in from California are telling them what to do and electing their politicians for them. Good luck with that.

Indeed, Texas grows their own liberals. Ever heard of Molly Ivins? How about Charlie Wilson?

Where did people ever get the idea that liberalism is somehow a California thing? Liberals like to move here since the weather is better than where they came from.


I think some states in Australia tried lowering the drinking age and the kids went nuts. Like puke-and-piss-yourself-face-down-in-a-gutter-in-front-of-the-bar drunk. It was one thing back in the 70's when the drinking age was 18 because people knew how to handle it. To suddenly grant kids the right to booze overnight would be insane. I know I wouldn't have been able to handle it.

And true, you can vote and serve in the military at 18. 18 year olds can vote, which means that if kids actually voted in significant numbers, politicians would listen. But they don't.

FUD! Kids would rapidly adapt and stop binge drinking, just as college students do the same after enough binges. Look at Europe and much the rest of the world. Their kids are often allowed to drink at much earlier ages and aren't puking in the gutters most of the time. It's the American kids (I was one) who you see there getting s#!%-faced drunk, unable to control themselves - utterly disgraceful. It's Americas crazy puritanical values that put such a premium on demonizing liquor that we effectively make it an act of civil disobedience to drink.

Zhukov
01-31-2009, 1:57 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but this would NEVER pass constitutional muster?

Sure, the drinking age in most places are 21, but drinking alcohol is NOT a right.

Owning firearms is a guaranteed individual right.

You cannot deny someone their rights because they are not 21 as 18 is no longer a minor.