Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rep. Sensenbrenner Rams Gun Ban Through On (Voice Vote)
http://www.gunowners.org ^ | Wednesday, November 5, 2003 | http://www.gunowners.org

Posted on 11/05/2003 7:03:36 PM PST by veryone

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last
To: neverdem
The concealed carry legislation in so many states since this bill was originally passed in 1988 makes this nonsense moot.

Actually it doesn't, it just means you won't be able to conceal your firearm from those with the proper equipment. Of course that would be true with a non-metallic gun as well. Any gun is bound to be fairly dense, and certain types of x-rays (and other stuff) should be able to see it. Heck the x-ray machine at the House office building saw a plastic toy gun...the operator didn't see it right away, but the machine did.

61 posted on 11/06/2003 8:04:52 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 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.


That's nice "sheep's clothing", but the "wolf" is in the relegating future generations to the equivalent of muzzle-loaders, in today's terms. Convenience for hunters is a nice way to slide through laws that ensure those who would resist tyranny would be unable to do so.
62 posted on 11/06/2003 8:25:50 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
True, but the bill also contained lots of good stuff.


And Mussolini made the trains run on time. Tyranny, when properly executed, is popular.

How much of your liberties, and the future of our free republic, are you willing to give up for "good stuff"?
63 posted on 11/06/2003 8:27:37 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
True, but the bill also contained lots of good stuff.


And Mussolini made the trains run on time. Tyranny, when properly executed, is popular.

How much of your liberties, and the future of our free republic, are you willing to give up for "good stuff"?
64 posted on 11/06/2003 8:27:39 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"Actually it doesn't, it just means you won't be able to conceal your firearm from those with the proper equipment. Of course that would be true with a non-metallic gun as well. Any gun is bound to be fairly dense, and certain types of x-rays (and other stuff) should be able to see it. Heck the x-ray machine at the House office building saw a plastic toy gun...the operator didn't see it right away, but the machine did."

That was my point in an earlier comment about current imaging technology. It's so good that their embarrassed about intimate anatomy being revealed.

Did you forget my question about positrons and other sub-atomic particles? I was referring to that imaging technology when I made the comment about anti-matter. Remember the name of these House and Senate bills re-authorzing the law against "Undetectable Firearms", IIRC. I posted a copy of the House bill in an earlier comment.

By using the term "moot" I was referring to the attitude of the security freaks and the anti-gun nuts towards guns. I prefer Vermont's attitude.

BTW, I remembered that electrons and positrons annihilate each other. Isn't that technology used in particle accelerators to generate transient sub-atomic particles, quarks, muons, pions, leptons, etc.? I haven't kept up that branch of physics.


65 posted on 11/06/2003 8:55:50 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"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.)"

I obviously din't get to your previous comment. I was trained as chemist and now have reason to be familiar with PET scans because of my career. Do you know if they are routinely smashing protons, i.e. the typical hydrogen ion, with its less typical chemical form, i.e. the hydride ion, atomic hydrogen bearing an extra electron? That seems to be what your saying.


66 posted on 11/06/2003 9:31:09 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Do you know if they are routinely smashing protons, i.e. the typical hydrogen ion, with its less typical chemical form, i.e. the hydride ion, atomic hydrogen bearing an extra electron? That seems to be what your saying.

Not at all. I was talking about an anti-proton. When an anti proton meets a proton, you a get a nice fat gamma ray. Chemistry it's not. But when a "naked" proton, that is one with no electron to call it's own, such as would be stored in a "storage ring" of an accellerator, gets out into the world of normal matter, it grabs an electron from whatever is handy and become a hydrogen atom. Whatever it grabbed it from become an ion, at least for a bit.

The anti-proton, which carries a negative electrical charge, is attracted to the regular proton, unlike the normal matter proton which carries a positive charge and is repelled by other protons... unless they get close enough for nuclear forces to become important, but that takes lots of energy, IOW, a very energetic proton.

67 posted on 11/06/2003 10:59:28 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Not at all. I was talking about an anti-proton. When an anti proton meets a proton, you a get a nice fat gamma ray. Chemistry it's not. But when a "naked" proton, that is one with no electron to call it's own, such as would be stored in a "storage ring" of an accellerator, gets out into the world of normal matter, it grabs an electron from whatever is handy and become a hydrogen atom. Whatever it grabbed it from become an ion, at least for a bit.

The anti-proton, which carries a negative electrical charge, is attracted to the regular proton, unlike the normal matter proton which carries a positive charge and is repelled by other protons... unless they get close enough for nuclear forces to become important, but that takes lots of energy, IOW, a very energetic proton

Maybe I'm not stating it clearly to you by saying it was a "hydride ion, i.e. a hydrogen atom with an extra electron". Does an anti-proton have the mass of a hydrogen atom plus the miniscule mass and charge of an extra electron? That's what I'm trying to describe. Or am I not sufficiently comprehending the nature of the physics here?

BTW, atomic hydrogen doesn't normally exist in nature. As a general rule we make it from the hydrolysis of water. It can hang around as molecular hydrogen, i.e. two atoms of hydrogen covalently bonded in a molecule of hydrogen, but it's oxidized too readily and doesn't last long. That why we have plenty of water, and dubious prospects for all this talk about cars propelled with fuel cell technology. It will require more energy to generate all that hydrogen gas than it will yield when oxidized.

They can make make hydrides from the column of the Periodic Table that includes sodium, potassium, etc. but they are very reactive chemicals, i.e. not stable, IIRC.

68 posted on 11/07/2003 12:54:00 AM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
well, I consider myself too conservative to be a real Republican too. Senslessbrenner is making sure more people are thinking that way.
69 posted on 11/07/2003 7:29:53 AM PST by GeronL (Visit www.geocities.com/geronl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Does an anti-proton have the mass of a hydrogen atom plus the miniscule mass and charge of an extra electron? That's what I'm trying to describe. Or am I not sufficiently comprehending the nature of the physics here?

I think the latter is the case. How to explain what anti-matter is? It's sort of reversed matter, opposite charge, opposite spin, opposite strangeness, etc. Only thing the same is the mass. Like your molecular or atomic hydrogen, it's not normally seen in nature. (Although exactly why not is something of a mystery, at least to me). When it comes in contact with ordinary matter, it goes "poof" and generates a gamma ray, E=MC2. The positron is the anti particle for the electron, but the whole "zoo" of subatomic particles all have anti-mattter opposite numbers. It's got nothing to do with chemistry, except I suppose if you had enough of the stuff off by itself somewhere, it would exhibit the same chemical properties as regular matter, but with reversals, for example the corresponding anti-ion would have the opposite charge of the normal matter ion.

70 posted on 11/07/2003 9:30:56 AM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
How much of your liberties, and the future of our free republic, are you willing to give up for "good stuff"?

None at all. The point was that the "bad stuff" was slipped in at the last minute, no one knew for sure what it meant, and Reagan probably didn't know it was in there. He did know about the good stuff, since getting that was the whole point of the bill in the first place. Sort of like them trying to slip the "gun show loophole" closure and even the AW ban renewal into the legislation that would prevent the nuisance lawsuits against gun makers whose products are missued by "consumers", (Most of which stole the product anyway, or bought it from someone who did). We caught them this time ahead of time. In the case of the FOPA, it was literraly the last minute and we didn't catch the guy in time to prevent the inclusion of the machine gun ban into the law.

I don't think we can blame Reagan for that, which is all I'm trying to say.

71 posted on 11/07/2003 9:35:43 AM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
BTW, I remembered that electrons and positrons annihilate each other. Isn't that technology used in particle accelerators to generate transient sub-atomic particles, quarks, muons, pions, leptons, etc.? I haven't kept up that branch of physics.

Sometimes, but usually it's easier to just jack up the energy of "normal" particles. But it is done.

During a seminar for laymen (that would be me) interested in the now cancelled Super Conducting Super Collider, the head of the Physics department at SMU said that using "atom smashers" to study subatomic particles was sort of like smashing Chevies together to study the properties of the semi-conductors in the radios and other electronics in the cars. Seems like the best thing to do with a Chevy anyway. :)

72 posted on 11/07/2003 9:40:48 AM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Does an anti-proton have the mass of a hydrogen atom plus the miniscule mass and charge of an extra electron?

Didn't answer the question, did I? The answer is no. The anti proton has exactly the same mass as a regular proton, but opposite charge, spin, etc.

73 posted on 11/07/2003 9:42:22 AM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
"Didn't answer the question, did I? The answer is no. The anti proton has exactly the same mass as a regular proton, but opposite charge, spin, etc."

I thank you for your patience. Bear with me for one last question. Are all these anti-matter particles, with the exception of positrons, just the short lived result of these "smashing" accelerator experiments?


74 posted on 11/07/2003 12:54:19 PM PST by neverdem (Say a prayer for New York both for it's lefty statism and the probability the city will be hit again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
I don't think we can blame Reagan for that, which is all I'm trying to say.


In moral terms, you are probably right, in that he did not intend a citizenry disarmed of militia arms. But in political terms, the buck stops with the guy whose signature is at the bottom of the bill. (If I were President, I'd ask before signing any bills: "anything new in here since we last analyzed this?")
75 posted on 11/07/2003 1:14:10 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus; gnarledmaw
"I have been told that Bushmaster Firearms Company is prohibited from using their composite receivers with even a steel lined composite barrel since under the current law, a composite barrel with a steel liner may be still considered to be "plastic.” "

Is Bushmaster into make pistols? This doesn't apply to rifles.

Here's the '88 law synopsis. It was incorporated into 18USCchap44 sec922

***************************************** H.R.4445 Public Law: 100-649 (11/10/88) SPONSOR: Rep Hughes (introduced 04/21/88) SUMMARY AS OF: (REVISED AS OF 10/21/88 -- Senate agreed to House amendment with an amendment) Jump to Search Words/Phrases Undetectable Firearms Act-> of <-1988-> - Amends the Federal criminal code to make it unlawful to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm: (1) which is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar (after the removal of grips, stocks, and magazines) by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Exemplar; or (2) of which any major component, when subjected to inspection by x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component. Defines the term "Security Exemplar" to mean an object that is suitable for testing and calibrating metal detectors and is, during the 12-month period beginning on the date of enactment of this <-Act->, constructed of 3.7 ounces of stainless steel in a shape resembling a handgun. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury, at the close of such 12-month period and at appropriate times thereafter, to promulgate regulations to permit the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of <-firearms-> that are as detectable as a security exemplar which contains 3.7 ounces of stainless steel or such lesser amount as is detectable in view of advances in state-of-the-art developments in weapons detection technology. States that no provision of this <-Act-> shall not apply to: (1) the manufacture, possession, transfer, receipt, shipment, or delivery of a firearm by a licensed manufacturer for the purpose of examining and testing such firearm to determine whether it would be prohibited by this <-Act->; and (2) any firearm which has been certified by the Secretary of Defense or the Director of Central Intelligence as necessary for military or intelligence applications and is manufactured for and sold exclusively to military or intelligence agencies of the United States. Permits the conditional importation of <-firearms-> for the purpose of examination and testing to determine whether the importation of such <-firearms-> will be allowed under this <-Act->. Provides an exemption from such prohibition for any firearm possessed in the United States before the enactment of this <-Act->. Provides criminal penalties for violations of this <-Act->. Prohibits the Secretary from authorizing the importation of <-undetectable firearms->. Directs the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct research to improve the effectiveness of airport security metal detectors and airport security x-ray systems. Directs the Attorney General, the Secretary, and the Secretary of Transportation to conduct studies to identify available equipment capable of detecting the Security Exemplar while distinguishing innocuous metal objects. Repeals such prohibition ten years after the effective date of this <-Act<-.

***********************************************

You can go here for the law. Just type in 18 for title, 44 for chap and 922 for sec. A more readable, but maybe less acurate copy is at...

This refers to handguns, all that nonsense about it refering to rifles is rubbish.

Here's the reauth...

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.

76 posted on 11/12/2003 1:21:36 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: spunkets; gnarledmaw
Is Bushmaster into make pistols?

Yes, a composite framed pistol. Unless the barrel liner in your composite replacement barrel has close to 3.7 ounces of stainless steel, you could be in violation of this statute. Although this is currently an extreme case, making this stupid law permanent could easily make many future firearms illegal for private citizens to own.

77 posted on 11/12/2003 2:02:43 PM PST by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus
"Unless the barrel liner in your composite replacement barrel has close to 3.7 ounces of stainless steel, you could be in violation of this statute."

The statute requires the gun simply look like a handgun in the xray imager. The 3.7ozs of stainless is for the standard image referred to in the law as a "security exemplar". That could be achieved by other means, as long as they are an essentially permanent feature. All Bushmaster has to do is make their pistol look like a pistol in the ximager. Even if the barrel of that pistol was a lb. of steel, it would not pass the law, because it don't look like a pistol in the imager.

The law is still not permanent. This is a 10 year extension.

"Although this is currently an extreme case, making this stupid law permanent could easily make many future firearms illegal for private citizens to own. "

It may. I just don't see practical, or worthwhile guns being made unavailable.

78 posted on 11/12/2003 2:38:30 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
All Bushmaster has to do is make their pistol look like a pistol in the ximager.

By doing what, adding non-structural metal? There may not be room. The use of wood and metal in firearms is declining and future designs may not have any. This could someday cause private citizens in the U.S. to be prohibited from owning modern firearms.

The law is still not permanent. This is a 10 year extension.

The Senate version S. 1774 makes it permanent. Are you naive enough to think that they won't pass it in the middle of the night again?

It I just don't see practical, or worthwhile guns being made unavailable.

If you are willing to support the ban of the manufacturer of a class of firearms simply because you don't think they are practical or worthwhile, you are on the wrong side of the fence. While using your page to get to the link to the state page, I noticed that you have a picture of some muzzle loaders there. By your same selfish logic, I should have no problem with banning the sale of black powder (an explosive) since I don't think muzzle loaders are very practical or worthwhile. Terrorists are far more likely to take advantage of that "loophole" than ever use an "insufficiently metallic firearm."

79 posted on 11/12/2003 3:05:42 PM PST by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Ronaldus Magnus
" If you are willing to support the ban of the manufacturer of a class of firearms simply because you don't think they are practical or worthwhile, you are on the wrong side of the fence.

Who said I support this law. I'm just not worried about it and I told you why. I told you there are more important things to worry about-like the AW ban. I'm more worried about not having an effective defense from an air assault, or arty's cluster munitions than I am about this.

"This could someday cause private citizens in the U.S. to be prohibited from owning modern firearms."

Nah.

" The use of wood and metal in firearms is declining and future designs may not have any."

I told you metal IS REQUIRED for the barrel and all they have to do is provide a sufficiently xray dense handle. "There may not be room."

There's always plenty of room. I think you're missing the hint that I am well aware of the relevant physics and material science.

"I should have no problem with banning the sale of black powder (an explosive) since I don't think muzzle loaders are very practical or worthwhile. Terrorists are far more likely to take advantage of that "loophole" than ever use an "insufficiently metallic firearm.""

It's not a loophole. There are some things that are important and some that are not.

80 posted on 11/12/2003 3:56:16 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-93 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson