The gentleman is mistaken. There is a difference between the officer and the gun. The gun is being retired. The officer may have committed a felony--the ex-officer, I should say, may have committed a felony, may have been forced out for bad conduct, and under this amendment would be permitted to purchase the gun without a background check that would show his felony or whatever conduct caused him to be pushed out. It is dangerous. We are not talking about an officer upon retirement buying his gun. We are talking about an ex-officer who may have committed a felony, who may have been forced out for dangerous conduct now being permitted to purchase a gun without a background check that would show that this is a dangerous character. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Share & report
More from Jerry Nadler
As dean of the New York delegation, it is my distinct honor to rise today to introduce Congressman-elect Tim Kennedy. I can think of no better person to represent New York's 26th Congressional District and succeed our friend Brian Higgins…
My friend from New York talks about the Biden border crisis, and he talks about the bill that failed in the Senate because the former President, former President Trump, told the Senate, told Republicans not to vote for it because he wanted…
This partisan bill does nothing to combat the BDS movement. Rather, it seeks to codify the policy of labeling products that come from West Bank settlements as made in Israel. In truth, such action is a backhanded attempt to illuminate a…
The gentleman just attacked Special Counsel Smith. This dangerous attempt to demonize anybody who would hold Donald Trump accountable for his actions is despicable and it is a full-out assault on the basic tenets of our democracy. I want…





