Posted on 11/05/2003 7:03:36 PM PST by 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.