The Undetectable Gun Act

[UrbanWolf]

The Undetectable Gun Act would be up for vote soon. It not only renew the ban on polymer/plastic guns with less than 3.7oz of steel, he's trying to broaden the ban by including magazines, 3D printed guns and certain gun moldings.

Probably time to email reps.

[merl]

bill number or link?

I am hoping the congressional gridlock will allow this one to die. ATF has really been harping its expiration the last month or so.

[hatidua]

Although there are a lot of "feel good" laws on the books, this one has got to take the top prize in that field.

[Rabid]

It is not going to be as readable if i cut and paste so here is a link: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1474/text

Thanks for the heads up.

[merl]

yep, specifically calls out non-licenced manufacture. Though it seems to just be a duplicate of the other section which includes mere possession so not sure about that crap.

specifically calls out rifles now though it called out Firearm before so don't see what wad meant by that crap.

adds mags.


edit:
well crap I skipped over the findings part. should not have.


(3) digital manufacturing technologies, including but not limited to computer numerical control mills (CNC mills), 3-dimensional printers (3D printers), and laser cutting machines, are quickly advancing to a point where it will soon be possible to fabricate fully operational firearm components; and

They are well aware that 3D printing bans are catching CNC mills, this is not an accident.

[Hound]

Ummm WTF with magazines? Are Magpuls meeting this requirement or is this to just make it a PITA for us common folk?

[merl]

Ummm WTF with magazines? Are Magpuls meeting this requirement or is this to just make it a PITA for us common folk?

It works out to a flat ban of xray transparent materials as mags. Unless the plastic has barium sulfate in it, it would be transparent.

Note this bill was introduced April 10.

[J]

It works out to a flat ban of xray transparent materials as mags. Unless the plastic has barium sulfate in it, it would be transparent.

Note this bill was introduced April 10.

Wonder if the ammo is transparent too. Lol

[Rabid]

Note this bill was introduced April 10.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/29/lawmakers-seek-fix-as-law-limiting-plastic-guns-set-to-expire/

If i remember right this law came up in 1988 because of the rumors that Glock's were all plastic with a ceramic barrel. So now that this is a real possibility in they minds (again) they must be shitting their pants. Too bad you still need metal parts and ammo to make them. Not to mention how is a law going to stop someone from doing something that is illegal already.

[merl]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/29/lawmakers-seek-fix-as-law-limiting-plastic-guns-set-to-expire/

If i remember right this law came up in 1988 because of the rumors that Glock's were all plastic with a ceramic barrel. So now that this is a real possibility in they minds (again) they must be shitting their pants. Too bad you still need metal parts and ammo to make them. Not to mention how is a law going to stop someone from doing something that is illegal already.

Well aware it is set to expire, could find a dozen items in the news from the last month saying that. This renewal was introduced last spring at the peak of the "do something" frenzy and when all the liberator buzz was flying.

A simple renewal with no changes would have very likely passed. This one, as is, better not pass the house (depends if anyone reads it first).

[Eric P]

Since detection technology has changed to require a virtual strip search, even 100% plastic guns are detectable. No need to require metal parts any more.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I've always wanted Scaramanga's gun:

37445

With a fountain pen for the barrel
37447

A lighter for the action:
37449

Cigarette case for the handle:
37451

Cufflinks for the trigger:
37453

... and a bullet in the belt buckle:
37455

Of course, in today's age, I'd probably change the lighter to a USB flash drive and the cigarette case to a pocket camera or USB hard drive.

[UrbanWolf]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/12/02/house-votes-on-3d-plastic-gun-weapons-bill-monday/


The Undetectable Firearms Act, which was first enacted in 1988 and reauthorized
in 2003, makes it illegal to “manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess,
transfer or receive” any firearm that’s undetectable by metal detectors and
X-ray machines.

[Zundfolge]

The stupid thing about this law is that the instant you load your "undetectable gun" it becomes detectable.

[UrbanWolf]

The bill just passed the House by a voice vote. WTF is a voice vote?

http://bearingarms.com/u-s-house-passes-undetectable-firearms-act-renewal-on-voice-vote/

[merl]

means they don't get to go on record supporting gun control.

[UrbanWolf]

My understanding is this is a Renewal of existing law only. Does not include any of the expansions Whinycrats wanted.

[merl]

While that may be true, it is still gun control. Less onerous control than desired by some but still control.

[Aloha_Shooter]

While that may be true, it is still gun control. Less onerous control than desired by some but still control.

True but 1) the Supreme Court has held that some regulation is constitutional and 2) allowing renewal of existing law removes one more arrow from the Democrat quiver for 2014. As stupid as I think the existing law is, I'll take it over what will pass if the Democrats regain control of the House.

[merl]

You think this would stop them or even slow them down? Just because it was renewed doesn't mean the same bill couldn't be introduced again.

This is a voice vote for the sole reason of not having to go on record with support. This was a chance to let a useless piece of legislation die. Voice votes should never allow final passage.

[RiderGeek]

The bill just passed the House by a voice vote. WTF is a voice vote?

http://bearingarms.com/u-s-house-passes-undetectable-firearms-act-renewal-on-voice-vote/

It's a parliamentary tool which is the opposite of roll call vote, basically where they can avoid recording important stuff like the way a representative votes.

The chair of the committee / speaker of the house / president of the senate generally says "Ok guys, we're probably doing some underhanded and sneaky shit here, and naturally we don't want to be held accountable, so we're going to have a voice vote... How vote you?" A bunch of people shout Aye or Nay, at which point the speaker / chair / president pretty much arbitrarily decides whether or not he heard more Ayes than Nays, generally says "sounds like they Aye's have it.", and unless someone on the committee requests a roll call vote, which then may or may not be granted, we're pretty much stuck with whatever asinine bills our so called representatives decide to choke down the gullet of Democracy. [fail]

[Logan]

It's a parliamentary tool which is the opposite of roll call vote, basically where they can avoid recording important stuff like the way a representative votes.

That's just great. So after I write Polis and tell him I'm watching his vote, now I don't have a way to hold him accountable? Perhaps he'll write and tell me the reason he (more than likely) supported renewing the ban.

[lowbeyond]

Voice Vote. LOL

AVR !

[spqrzilla]

Notice that some were trolling the gun community by claiming that the bill with the expansion of the bill was up for a vote - when it was not.

It does us no good that some supposed gun rights organizations troll us for fund raising.

[sniper7]

total bs that needs to be shutdown. I hate the idea of this bs even being thought up let alone going to any kind of vote.

[Aloha_Shooter]

The chair of the committee / speaker of the house / president of the senate generally says "Ok guys, we're probably doing some underhanded and sneaky shit here, and naturally we don't want to be held accountable, so we're going to have a voice vote... How vote you?"

Note that it's also used to deny the opposition the ability to create issues. In this case, you're fooling yourself if you don't think the Dems were waiting with baited breath for the GOP to block renewal and hoping to use individual votes on record as tools for next year's elections. The renewal is ideologically impure and rather silly but really doesn't do much damage to gun rights and denies the Dems some talking points. Anyone who wanted a Pyrrhic victory on this needs a cranial-rectum extraction.

[merl]

Note that it's also used to deny the opposition the ability to create issues. In this case, you're fooling yourself if you don't think the Dems were waiting with baited breath for the GOP to block renewal and hoping to use individual votes on record as tools for next year's elections. The renewal is ideologically impure and rather silly but really doesn't do much damage to gun rights and denies the Dems some talking points. Anyone who wanted a Pyrrhic victory on this needs a cranial-rectum extraction.

I'm sorry I must be sipping from the wrong cool aid. I thought any infringement was a negative.

I also thought that our Representatives in our government should be accountable to their votes. They found a way to toss us under the bus without no accountability (albeit a rather small bus, more like a rickshaw).

The reason this is primarily a non-issue is because the law has been in effect ever since plastics started getting good enough to use in firearms. Development has been blocked since inception so there is nothing for us to point to and say "this was banned."

[RiderGeek]

Note that it's also used to deny the opposition the ability to create issues. In this case, you're fooling yourself if you don't think the Dems were waiting with baited breath for the GOP to block renewal and hoping to use individual votes on record as tools for next year's elections. The renewal is ideologically impure and rather silly but really doesn't do much damage to gun rights and denies the Dems some talking points. Anyone who wanted a Pyrrhic victory on this needs a cranial-rectum extraction.

No, I understand the need for a certain level of political pragmatism. It's low hanging fruit after all, it probably won't affect many of us ever; that means it's pretty easy to balance between the principles of the 2A, and the perceived need to not look like a bunch of D-Bags. Heck, even the NSSF (the association of many of our favorite firearms manufacturers, retailers, etc) supported this bill. Maybe they're looking at the progress 3D printing has made recently, and are hedging against it? Nah... Who would ever compromise on principal for commercial gain? [ROFL1]

On the same token, I think it could be argued that same kind of pragmatism helped bring us to the point we are now. Slippery slope and all of that. It was politically expedient for many to hop on the NFA bandwagon 80 years ago, and again with the 1968 GCA, 1986's Hughes amendment to the FOPA, and to a lesser degree with 1994's AWB, when many of the bozos who supported it got tossed out on their ear. When is the ideal point to stand on principal? What line are we not willing to cross while making concessions? P.S. those are rhetorical questions.


Notice that some were trolling the gun community by claiming that the bill with the expansion of the bill was up for a vote - when it was not.

Playing the devil's advocate to the supposed trolling nature of some of our organizations: Sometimes, it's impossible to know until the last minute what's being voted on. Witness the Hughes amendment as mentioned above, which effectively banned affordable machine guns. It was added to the bill at the very last minute in a voice vote, to a bill which otherwise protected firearms owners. Much like a sort of parliamentary shell game, judging by the video tape of the event, it's improbable many of our representatives fully understood what they were voting on.