On 24 Mar 2002 17:51:47 -0800, Joan Hampton  wrote:
>Sarah Brady did NOT break any gun laws � she didn't even come close. 
>The New York Daily News published a retraction on Saturday totally
>taking the blame for their mistake.  Here's what they said:
>
>CORRECTION 
>
>A story in some early editions of yesterday's Daily News incorrectly
>reported that gun-control advocate Sarah Brady may have skirted
>Delaware's gun laws when she bought a rifle for her adult son but did
>not declare who was going to own the weapon.
>
>The Delaware Department of Justice initially insisted to The News that
>gun purchasers must declare who the weapon was intended for so that
>person's background could be checked. Yesterday, a spokeswoman for the
>Delaware Department of Justice said it misinterpreted the law and that
>Brady was not obligated to state that the gun was for her son as long
>as he was legally qualified to own a firearm. In addition, a spokesman
>for Brady said, "Sarah Brady told the gun store that the gun was for
>her son and filled out the forms that they asked her to fill out."
>
>The News regrets the error.

In other words, they've passed a law so ambiguous that not even the
administrators can tell you what is or isn't required.

-- 
I am myself persuaded, on the basis of extensive study of the historical
evidence, that... the severity of each of the contractions - 1920-21;
1929-33, and 1937-38 - is directly attributable to acts of commission
and omission by the Reserve authorities and would not have occurred
under earlier monetary and banking arrangements.
        - Milton Friedman