House: Gun Ban Vote On November 5th

Gun Owners of America ^ | 11/4/03 | Gun Owners of America

[Donaeus]

Gun Ban Scheduled in the House for November 5 -- Ban would outlaw non-existing gun

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org

ACTION: Please use the pre-written text below to help direct your comments to your Representative. The vote on the gun ban is scheduled in the House for Wednesday, November 5.

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

It's outrageous. The Republicans in the House of Representatives tell us they don't have enough time to pass a concealed carry bill or the Citizen's Self-Defense Act.

But they have time to take up a ban on guns that don't even exist.

H.R. 3348, which is scheduled for a vote tomorrow, would renew the unconstitutional ban on plastic guns.

This firearm has never existed, and it may never. Yet the House will consider renewing the ban for another 10 years.

If a totally plastic gun is ever developed, a ban will not keep bad guys from getting their hands on such a firearm any more than the other 20,000 or so gun laws keep murderers and thieves from getting their hands on guns now.

Has the Congress taken care of real problems related to terrorism? Have they gotten the Transportation Safety Administration to arm pilots? Not unless 200 or so pilots (out of 100,000-plus) is their idea of arming pilots.

The real answer to airport security is to arm the pilots. Had they been armed on 9-11, terrorists never would have tried to hijack those four planes.

And how about forcing the TSA to hire the North Carolina college student, Nathaniel Heatwole, to instruct the TSA on how to tighten their "security" procedures at airports. Heatwole is the student who successfully smuggled boxcutters and other weapons on several planes. He was only caught because he e-mailed the Transportation Safety Agency about what he had done.

But before the TSA is made to hire Mr. Heatwole, Congress should do something really useful, such as letting any pilot with a concealed carry permit to take a gun inside the cockpit so we can have effective homeland security. Obviously, we will never have armed pilots as long as Congress tolerates the TSA's mismanagement of this program.

This is a serious issue. If Congress can exercise unconstitutional power to ban plastic guns, they can do the same with semi-automatic firearms.

Please visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm RIGHT AWAY to send the pre-written message below to your Representative.

----- Pre-written message -----

Dear Representative:

I urge you to vote against H.R. 3348. This bill is unconstitutional, and it is a useless waste of taxpayers' money and of your time. Plus, the gun it purports to ban doesn't even exist!

If a totally plastic gun is ever developed, a ban will not keep bad guys from getting their hands on such a firearm any more than the other 20,000 or so gun laws keep murderers and thieves from getting their hands on guns now.

You have much more important things to do. Please, instead of wasting your time banning a gun that does not exist, force the Transportation Safety Administration to arm pilots.

You might also spend your time getting the TSA to figure out how a college student repeatedly got weapons past the "security" points at airports and was only discovered because he sent an e-mail to the TSA.

Perhaps that same student could help your own "security" screeners on Capitol Hill, since they were rather embarrassed by a staffer who inadvertently snuck past them with a toy gun that was part of a Halloween costume.

Gun Owners of America will inform me how you vote. Please vote against H.R. 3348.

Sincerely,

[Donaeus]

Please vote on this very important issue ASAP.

[MindBender26]

Concerned citizens should NOT send that exact letter, but rather, put it in their own words.

Form letters get zero traction.

[jjm2111]

Who needs real work when feel good legislation will suffice.

[jjm2111]

I'm a member of GOA, but I always write a pharaphrase of their post cards on my own letterhead.

[Donaeus]

Very good point. Their format is set up to allow individuals to edit the text as they see fit.

[neverdem]

"But before the TSA is made to hire Mr. Heatwole, Congress should do something really useful, such as letting any pilot with a concealed carry permit to take a gun inside the cockpit so we can have effective homeland security. Obviously, we will never have armed pilots as long as Congress tolerates the TSA's mismanagement of this program."

I like the GOA and frequent its website often, but the previous quote "seems" to imply that they agree with the infringement of concealed carry legislation.

Vermont style, all the way. Flame away!

[El Laton Caliente]

I worked building a plant that was making a plastic that could be used for engine blocks. There have been a LOT of advances in plastics and ceramics in the past decade or so.

I've heard rumors and accounts; I think they have working prototypes and are scared sh*tless of something that can’t be detected. Remember, this wouldn’t have to last 20,000 rounds like a metal firearm; it just has to fire maybe 100 to 500 rounds between barrel changes.

Not that I think congress has the authority to regulate this without a constitutional amendment.

[Donaeus]

I know they're not perfect. But I find their email alerts very useful to stay aware of upcoming legislation and have successfully used the information to contact my Senators and Representatives.

[taxcontrol]

One way to look at this:

As lon as they are keep busy banning guns that don't exist, they have less time to ban guns that do exist.

[Donaeus]

My problem with this legislation is not whether or not a plastic gun exists or will exist but the fact that the proposed law is unconstitutional. Knowing the ingenuity of inventors I believe such a gun can be successfully brought to market. My concern is the banning itself which will be extended to include other firearms as soon as politicians have the chance. They are already expanding the assault weapons ban in hopes of overriding its sunset in Sept 2004. The same analogy applies to both plastic guns and "assault" weapons--if the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover those then the 1st Amendment doesn't cover word processors and computers.

[m1-lightning]

I urge you to vote against H.R. 3348. This bill is unconstitutional, and it is a useless waste of taxpayers' money and of your time. Plus, the gun it purports to ban doesn't even exist!

The bill prevents the experimentation and production of non-metallic guns. If plastic guns were created and sold, what would stop terrorists from say, walking through the metal detectors at government facilities or on airplanes?

[Donaeus]

Any ban that they can get passed will be used as a platform to ban everything else. Please see my previous post.

[Donaeus]

This bill like all others preceeding it do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Just because the US bans plastic guns it doesn't mean that other countries are not working to produce the same thing. A terrorist is a criminal and will find a way to get his/her hands on whatever equipment they feel necessary to do their "job." The answer is to get more firearms into the hands of law-abiding, trained citizens as has been proven by dropping crime rates in states with concealed carry.

[m1-lightning]

The answer is to get more firearms into the hands of law-abiding, trained citizens as has been proven by dropping crime rates in states with concealed carry.

But why is it necessary for citezens to have undetectable guns?

[NRA2BFree]

Bang!

[Mr. Mojo]

H.R. 3348, which is scheduled for a vote tomorrow, would renew the unconstitutional ban on plastic guns.

Ban plastic guns? Oh well, I never was a fan of Glocks anyway ;)

[m1-lightning]

I'm pro 2nd amendment, but to a certain degree. If there were no limitations on the 2nd amendment, there wouldn't be much difference between security in Baghdad and security in Washington. Our rights as citizens should not be so free to the extent where our leaders cannot be secure in government buildings from assassins or terrorists.

17-4 PH stainless steel is an alloy undetectable by metal detectors. If the ban were lifted, it would be legal to manufacture firearms with this alloy. This would mean that metal detectors anywhere would be pointless. Even if another country invents it first, this ban would certainly limit the availablity of it here.

Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988

[Mr. Mojo]

Geez......I thought they were voting only to ban plastic FAKE (although real-looking) guns, not plastic ACTUAL guns (that don't yet exist).

Indeed, this is outrageous!

[Donaeus]

If the government would stop trying to illegally remove guns from the American people then this wouldn't even be an issue. The thrust of this has nothing to do with the materials guns are made of, how they look, the number of rounds they fire, reducing crime or whatever they're pinning it to today. It is a means to an end which is unassailable and unchallenged control of this country. The very reason the Founders established the 2nd Amendment was to prevent such action and allow for recourse against the same. Guns that can't be detected can't be taken away. Self defense is an inalienable human right no matter how many laws Congress passes to relieve us of it.

If you doubt their intent take another look at David Koresh in Waco or Randy Weaver's family at Ruby Ridge. Guns, Crime and Freedom by Wayne LaPierre is a good starting place.