*2 THORNBERRY, Before COLEMAN INGRAHAM, Judges. Circuit THORNBERRY, Judge: Circuit violating Appellant convicted of pro 18 U.S.C.A. vides
(a) shall be unlawful — any person the ac- in connection with attempted acquisition or any firearm li- or ammunition from a importer, censed licensed manufactur- er, dealer, licensed or collec- licensed tor, knowingly any or to make fictitious or or oral written statement any false, to furnish exhibit ficti- or identification, tious, misrepresented likely to deceive such im- manufacturer, porter, dealer, or col- respect ma- lector with fact terial lawfulness the sale disposition firearm or provisions of ammunition chapter. “false statement” written he had never pun- or indicted crime convicted of year. than ishable a term of the lawfulness This fact is “material $10,000 imprisoned for than of a firearm 18 U.S. the sale” years, (1): 922(d) not more than or both. C.A. § (d) li- Bass was convicted felon found It shall be unlawful Ap- session of importer, a firearm. censed manufactur- licensed peals er, dealer, the Second concluded Circuit or licensed collector *3 affecting dispose that the “in commerce or com- to sell or of otherwise language (1) 1202(a) any person merce” of modi- or ammunition § firearm “possesses” “transports.” knowing fies cause to as well as reasonable conviction, person (1) thus since is under Bass’ believe that reversed — alleged for, Government had not indictment or has convicted proved any of, punishable by his in connection between court a crime imprisonment exceeding session and The for a term grounded part year; on court’s decision was grammatical part construction and on appellant At admitted that he trial its belief federal of mere that was a felon convicted and he was in- without some nexus with felony also for a at indictment terstate unconstitu- be required he Fire- the time filled out the tional. (Form 4473, arms Transaction Record Department United States of the Trea- affirmed, The but for sury) purchase of connection with the Bass, “substantially different reasons.” pistol from a dealer. The supra, to 518. The leaned at and conviction indictment were for of- grammatical ward the Second Circuit's punishable imprisonment fenses analysis placement of comma but based year. Appel- term of more than one primarily its decision on two con only defense his lant’s false First, siderations. statute is statement on the form not made was ambiguous. concerning “[A]mbiguity knowingly. jury rejected The this con- the ambit of criminal should statutes be tention. lenity.” resolved in favor at presented points ap- We are Secondly, the statute peal. first The is that the trial court’s punish possession” read to “mere with charge jury defective. This was proof of some relation inter argument is meritless. The second infring state comes close allege failed and ing on an area law enforcement tradi appellant’s a nexus between tionally arguably left states and gun dealer beyond power. federal required state commerce as United situation, this courts should be careful Bass, States v. authority not to extend federal absent a de- Congressional clear statement of intent. subsequent cided trial. Such a statement was In 18 absent. U. distinguishable We believe S.C.A.App. Congress set out what § affirm. interpreted to be extent involved 18 U.S.C.A.App. § gun area of control under the Commerce (a)(1), provides: believe, Clause. The did not how (a) Any person (1) ever, necessarily has been indicated who — convicted a court ex United to exercise the full any political 1202(a) States or tent State felony, open subdivision question thereof of a and Court thus receives, findings, transports “whether, who possesses, upon appropriate affecting commerce, Congress constitutionally commerce or firearms;” Bass, possession’ the date of enactment ‘mere Act, any be not shall fined n. 4. ostensibly Perez intrastate. differs instant case First, respects. was several (loan-sharking). 922(a) L.Ed.2d under 18 U.S.C.A. § convicted which, of fire (6), supra, We believe contrast with § persons by convicted felons and 1202(a) issue in felonies, although referring indictment to inter- contains arguably activity, imposes a intrastate thus face, upon burden interstate- com ambiguous sufficient on its unlike § proper federal part IV merce Secondly, of Title 922 is Cong. regulation. See U.S.Code Crime Safe the Omnibus Control If pp. 2163-2166. Admin.News Act of 1968. The Streets effectively prevent fairly is to extensive Title is guns illegal purpos interstate use convinces us *4 irrespective manu it control their sources: conduct es must dealers, importers. facturers, That commerce. immediate nexus with facing sought do in statutory provision what to Su- preme part of Title VII Court in summary, Supreme Court history legislative the same act. differently have ruled is, of Title VII as noted unambiguous faced an it had been with Bass, virtually nonexistent. The Court Congres and a clear indication of only therefore, was, minimal sional guidance. Thirdly, legislative the Con- these condi a felon. Absent Purpose set Declaration gressional tions, ques the Court chose leave Act Omnibus Crime of the open. n. In con tion clearly purpose to indicates in the trast the situation regulate acquisition of firearms have a clear case before us we regard to the nexus felons without unambiguous an intent and acquisition each individual Moreover, believe that ac statute. we part: provides closely re firearms through adequate mere lated interstate commerce than Fed- Therefore, possession. while Su for- control over interstate eral expressed in eign preme impliedly weapons, in these Congress' power persons engaging in all some reservations about the busi- over manufacturing, regulate firearms, possession of we importing,
nesses grave dealing them, entertain no doubt that has the can this regulate with, re problem properly without their dealt quiring proof a nexus with interstate and local effective State (em- individual case. possible; each traffic be added). phasis Affirmed. from the It seems clear REHEARING PETITION FOR ON his from its REHEAR- AND PETITION FOR
tory, of Con and from BANC EN ING gressional purpose meant types regulate fire sales PER CURIAM: by the Omnibus Crime covered denied The Petition for just Act, in which sales Judge panel nor specific some regular active service on the connection polled having requested Court be only question remaining is whether banc, (Rule rehearing en Federal act it did. had the Procedure; Appellate Local Rules of 12) Congress may undoubtedly the Petition for im Circuit Rule Fifth En Banc is pose on conduct denied. criminal sanctions