Rep. Sensenbrenner Rams Gun Ban Through On (Voice Vote)

http://www.gunowners.org ^ | Wednesday, November 5, 2003 | http://www.gunowners.org

[veryone]

Rep. Sensenbrenner Rams Gun Ban Through On Voice Vote -- Time to ask your Senators to oppose the same ban

Wednesday, November 5, 2003

The gun grabbers know what this fight is all about... it's about "incrementalism." It's about steadily advancing their illicit cause, even when support for gun control has little popular appeal outside of Congress.

Consider the statement of one prominent Democrat on the House floor today:

"In the wake of the September 11 attacks, we need to do much more to prevent dangerous firearms from falling into the hands of would-be terrorists and other violent criminals," said Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) when speaking in favor of the ban that passed the House this morning.

"We could start by renewing the current assault weapons ban. We could also strengthen criminal background checks and close the gun show loophole," Scott said. "Finally, we need to protect us from [plastic guns]. The bill before us today achieves the last of these objectives."

In other words: "We want much more, but today, we'll settle for a ban on a gun that doesn't even exist."

Scott wants to ban these guns, before they are ever invented, to keep bad guys from getting them. The fallacy of his argument is in thinking that ANY gun ban will stop terrorists and violent criminals from getting the outlawed weapons. No gun ban on the face of the earth has done that yet.

Not in the nation's capital -- nor in Chicago, Los Angeles or even England -- have gun bans worked to keep bad guys from getting firearms.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) authored this bill to extend the prohibition on plastic firearms. The current ban is scheduled to sunset in December.

The Wisconsin Congressman brought it directly to the floor of the House, having skipped the committee process, after successfully urging the House leadership to allow the rules of the House to be suspended.

Speaking in favor of the ban, Sensenbrenner praised the Bush Justice Department for supporting the bill. In opposition, Gun Owners of America was the only national gun lobby to fight the ban.

Sensenbrenner managed to get H.R. 3348 passed on a voice vote, meaning that fewer than 30 Representatives -- those who happened to be on the floor at the time -- were all that it took to extend the ban on these firearms.

In one sense, the ban is meaningless since a completely plastic gun has yet to be invented. It would be like banning Star Trek phaser rifles. The technology is not even there. And no gun manufacturer is even close to developing an all-plastic gun in the near future.

In another sense, however, the ban continues to extend the illegitimate reach of Congress into the realm of firearms -- a precedent which will be used by gun grabbers in the future to justify more bans.

The fight now shifts to the Senate, where Senator Ted Kennedy is expected to push his version of the bill very soon.

Unlike the House bill, which simply extends the ban for 10 more years, S. 1774 would make the ban permanent.

ACTION: Please urge your Senator to oppose S. 1774, and to instead support REAL efforts aimed at stopping terrorists -- such as arming the rest of the pilots who want to carry guns.

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

------ Pre-written message ----- Dear Senator:

I urge you to vote against S. 1774, a bill authored by Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). 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.

Gun Owners of America will inform me how you vote. Please vote against S. 1774.

Sincerely,

**************************** New! "Just For Skeptics" Websection

Know someone who doesn't know what to think about using guns for self protection? Or perhaps someone who "knows" all about the need for gun control -- and doesn't know they are wrong? Check out the Just For Skeptics section of the GOA website at http://www.gunowners.org/skeptic.htm to help your friends. Dozens of articles and fact sheets divided into eight categories explode common gun control myths, highlight real-life instances of self-defense, and explore the role of the gun in modern society. Even a long-time activist will find plenty of "soundbites" suitable for talk shows or casual conversation. Tell those skeptical friends of yours about it today -- before some thug gets to them first!

[Dan from Michigan]

I didn't expect this horsesh*t from Sensenbrenner. Not at all. And how gutless to do it on a voice vote. No balls at all.

[Barnacle]

In one sense, the ban is meaningless since a completely plastic gun has yet to be invented. It would be like banning Star Trek phaser rifles. The technology is not even there. And no gun manufacturer is even close to developing an all-plastic gun in the near future.

Exactly. I'm going to save my energies for something a bit more relevant. There is wisdom in choosing your battles. I'm not fighting in this one. I'll be fresh and ready to go when something significant comes along.

[spunkets]

"I didn't expect this horsesh*t from Sensenbrenner."

He's not exactly a freind of personal Freedom, or the 2nd Amend in particular. He's more in line with Sen Lugar(R) IN.

[veryone]

All Voice Vote must stop

[Squantos]

So who was the GOP polidiot assigned to babysit / guard the floor that day ? If such crap is gonna happen in the dark of night then at any given time there needs to be at least three GOP congresscritters present if even one Socialist Rat is near the floor of congress to prevent such backdoor BS.

Stay Safe !

[af_vet_1981]

Now tanks I don't know what to do with, but maybe just maybe we can bury those aircraft like the Iraqis did with some of theirs......

I'll side with the United States government in that fight.

[neverdem]

I just entered H.R. 3348 and then clicked on Summary.

Once before I found they create temporary files that left me creating links to nothing. Maybe that's what happening to you.

Did you try the link to S. 1774 that I made in a subsequent comment? I just got online and your comment is the first that I read and answered.

[neverdem]

I belive that's what happened. I just tried the link to the S. 1774 and got an error message. I went back to Thomas, entered H.R. 3348 and did a "copy and paste" on the second version here:

Bill 2 of 2
There is 1 other version of this bill. GPO's PDF version of this bill References to this bill in the Congressional Record Link to the Bill Summary & Status file. Printer Friendly Display - 2,028 bytes.[Help]

---

To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms. (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3348

AN ACT
To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms.

HR 3348 EH


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3348

---

AN ACT
To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE BAN ON UNDETECTABLE FIREARMS.

Section 2(f)(2) of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended--

(1) by striking `15' and inserting `25';

(2) in subparagraph (B)--

(A) by striking `and (h)' and inserting `through (o)'; and

(B) by striking `and (g)' and inserting `through (n)'; and

(3) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E) and inserting the following:

`(D) section 924(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking `this subsection, subsection (b), (c), or (f) of this section, or in section 929' and inserting `this chapter'; and

`(E) section 925(a) of such title is amended--

`(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922(p)'; and

`(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking `, except for provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922(p),'; and

`(iii) in each of paragraphs (3) and (4), by striking `except for provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922(p),'.'.
Passed the House of Representatives November 5, 2003.

Attest:

Clerk.

---

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display

---

[Atlas Sneezed]

As I recall, didnt Reagan promised at the beginning of his presidency, to veto any gun control law that hit his desk???? - the oppositite of what bush said.

---

Of course, Reagan signed Volkmer-McClure in 1986, which could be the worst gun control act ever passed, since it denies all future generations of Americans the right to keep and bear modern rifles of the type borne by troops in our standing army. (Limits select fire weapons to pre-1986 technology, with 1 gun for each 1000 "citizens.")

[jmc813]

Wow...look at all the babbling Paleo-Cons fretting over a ban on a gun that doesn't even exist.

So I suppose you have to be a paleo-con to take the Second Amendment literally now?

[A. Patriot]

I thought Sensenbrenner used to be a friend of gun rights. What happened?

[Once-Ler]

Now what was that you were saying about Texas?

My comments were only 4 sentences long.

[waterstraat]

I guess I forgot about that provision, but most of the rest of the bill was good wasnt it? I think Reaganalso thought it was a pro gun bill, esp about allowing citizens to be able to travel with guns. I dont own any machine guns, and dont want one, but I do travel with guns, so Volkmer-McClure has benifited me so far.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I guess I forgot about that provision, but most of the rest of the bill was good wasnt it? I think Reaganalso thought it was a pro gun bill, esp about allowing citizens to be able to travel with guns. I dont own any machine guns, and dont want one, but I do travel with guns, so Volkmer-McClure has benifited me so far.

---

Of course, if the purpose of the second amendment is not to provide convenience for travelers, but as a bulwark against a standing army, then the bill would seem to be one of the most dangerous ones in the history of our nation.

[lodwick]

Those sorry, worthless jackasses...out with the lot of them.

[PhilDragoo]

Nonsensenbrenner threatens endangered species.

[Bolivar]

The law you are referring to was called, The Firearm Owners Protection Act. It's been the only rollback of Federal gun laws ever passed.

It allowed not only for safe and secure interstate transportation of firearms, it removed the ban on mail order ammo sales.

Reagan was a very good friend of the Second Amendment.

[El Gato]

think it got around DeLay because he's throwing the anti-gun nuts a bone that means nothing, but it would sound bad in the traditional media who know very little about guns or technology.

Dream on.

do you have any idea if they have any usuable practical anti-matter particles bigger than positrons?

IIRC, they've made pretty much all the anti-particles. Of course they don't stick around long, and storing anything larger than an anti-proton would be energically problematic, but I think they have stored substantial numbers of anti-protons. (That's harder than storing protons, because all that happens with a proton if your storage containment fails or leaks, is that it grabs an electron and becomes a hydrogen atom. An anti proton anillates a proton and you get a nice big gamma ray.)

[veryone]

thanks

[El Gato]

Of course, Reagan signed Volkmer-McClure in 1986, which could be the worst gun control act ever passed

True, but the bill also contained lots of good stuff. Like taking the wind out of the BATFs sails, for a while at least, like removing the recording of every "handgun" ammunition sale (including all .22 rimfire), removing the prohibition on buy ammunition interstate w/o a FFL, and probably most importantly, prohibiting states and localitis from charging you with a crime, for merely transporting an unloaded and locked away firearm accross their jurisidiction, even if you didn't intend to *be* in their jurisdiction. The machine gun ban was a last minute, literally, addition to the bill. If the President had a line item veto, he might have vetoed that part. (In any event, it merely awaits the proper interpretaion of the wording to return to the previously existing arrangement, even though what is being enforced is the intent of the Clymer that offered that amendment, rather than what the law actually says)