[WAGCEVP]

Gun Ban Rammed Through On Voice Vote


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

[Telperion]

Now why on earth did he do this? I've heard Sensenbrenner has an excellent record on gun rights. Maybe as a concession to save S.659 from a filibuster? As others have explained, the ban does nothing. I'm not sure of its fate in the Senate. They'll probably have to pull similar shenanigans to get it passed there because nobody really cares about it.

[gun-fucious]

i will gladly trade a ban on non existant technology
for a pass on the assault weapon ban and the gunshow loophole

hey, at least the Bradys get something in the compromise

maybe they would like a ban on kyptonite bullets too!

i'll roll back the GCA 1968 for that

:p

[Standing Wolf]

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

Never trust a R.I.N.O.

[Boats]

I have gone on at length about why fighting a ban on non-existant guns is a lose/lose for RKBA. You only get negative press defending the figment of an anti's imagination. There is no point, therefore a voice vote.

[Mark Tyson]

There is a point - to show how cataclysmically STUPID these people are.

"Avast, ye scurvy dogs! Ye stupidity shall be revealed for all the nation to see! Arrr."

[PeteyPete]

Those plastic guns are damn frightening.....especially when they use those ceramic slides, springs, and barrels!:eek:

[Boats]

All of the Dmocratic stupidity demonstrations in the world wouldn't insulate the Republicans from media charges of not wanting to outlaw "terrorist weapons." I think I'll trust the instincts on this one that the situation was a media trap if one argued against it.

No harm, no foul, the real battles have always been S.659 and the sunset of the AWB, no way those are voice votes.

[revlar]

If I recall correctly, the security scanner at that Senate office building detected the toy gun that was to be part of a staffer's halloween costume - and set off the security fiasco.
I'm guessing the toy gun was plastic - yet it STILL was detected by the scanner.

Hmm...sounds to me like we're seeing the propagation of yet another myth.

[cuchulainn]

Revlar,

Yep.

[AZRickD]

A voice vote.

Meaning:

1) They hadn't the courage to go on record

2) No pro-gunnies were smart enough to force a count

[HankB]

. . . 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 . . . The House has 435 members . . . do you have a quorum if more than 405 are absent? :confused:

[Mark Tyson]

Why don't we invent more mythical threats to occupy their time.

[foghornl]

The House has 435 members . . . do you have a quorum if more than 405 are absent?

Been waaay too long since I studied "Parliamentary Procedure", but if I recall correctly, the "suggested absence of a quorum" has to be brought up by someone.

Another question...just how closely does the House follow 'Roberts Rules of Order' or whatever Procedural Guide they use? Not very, I suggest

[Jonesy9]

way to go Republicans!

[rock jock]

Next on the agenda: banning illegal aliens (no, not the south of the border kind, the ET kind). Its important, folks. :D

[AJ Dual]

I think Sensenbrenner did us a favor.

He rammed a bill through that bans something that dosen't exist out to the floor before any truly damaging ammendments that affect any other polymer framed guns like Glocks, HK's, Kel-Tec's, Kahrs, Walthers, etc. could be tacked on.

Such easy passage also keeps the issue off the table as far as the press is concerned. No story there, so they can't go twisting the facts and trying to create other negative associations with guns that don't even exist

The only sin he's guilty of is helping make the CFR just a tad longer.

I agree with gunowners.org's complaints in theroy, but this is one of those things where practicality overrides.

[tyme]

Pull House floor security footage.

Figure out who voted for the bill.

Impeach, convict, and then deport them.

[DadOfThree]

If there is a need to ban plastic guns .... might as well ban phasers and distrupters as well. Just in case. You can never be too safe.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The House has 435 members . . . do you have a quorum if more than 405 are absent?

The bill was rammed through the Judiciary committee. It still has a vote coming on the House floor.

Boats is dead on right about the nature of a lose/lose proposition in fighting this bill. In fact, I'd say the primary purpose of this bill is to make the Republicans look tough on guns while accomplishing exactly nothing.

[gunsmith]

I was watching a tv show,seems these "klingons"
(are they from the middle east?) have stolen a cloaking device
from the "romulans" (must be those romans!)
they can cloak their warships and beam into the
senate where they can whip out those photon
grenades!
quick! someone call rosie!





and these pol's just gave themselves a raise???????

[alan]

Re Sensenbrernner's "good record" on guns, according to whom?

[cuchulainn]

Bartholomew Roberts: The bill was rammed through the Judiciary committee. It still has a vote coming on the House floor. No, actually, it passed the House with a suspension of the rules just as GAO describes.

See: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR03348:@@@XH.R.3348
Title: To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms.
Sponsor: Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [WI-5] (introduced 10/20/2003) Cosponsors: 1
Latest Major Action: 11/5/2003 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATUS: (color indicates Senate actions)

10/20/2003:
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

10/22/2003:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

11/5/2003 11:19am:
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.

11/5/2003 11:19am:
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10363-10364)

11/5/2003 11:28am:
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.

11/5/2003 11:28am:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. See: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r108:1:./temp/~r108MDuEe4::REAUTHORIZING THE BAN ON UNDETECTABLE FIREARMS -- (House of Representatives - November 05, 2003)
[Page: H10363] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3348) to reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms, as amended.

The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 3348

<snip> reading of entire bill

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3348, the bill currently under consideration.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?

There was no objection.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in the last few years, we have had to make a lot of adjustments in security for our Nation's airports, government buildings, and ports. We have recognized that this heightened security is necessary to protect the United States from terrorist threats. However, even before the events of September 11, 2001, Members of Congress

[Page: H10364] GPO's PDF
recognized the possibility of threats from terrorists, both from within and without our borders.
In 1988, Congress passed a ban on undetectable firearms to prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, shipping, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms that could not be detected by metal detectors or x-ray machines. Since passengers are not permitted to bring firearms on to planes and individuals cannot bring firearms into government buildings, it only makes sense that we ensure that the firearms purchased in this country are detectable by the security machines in those places.

The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 provided a sunset on the ban after 10 years to take into account any changes in technology of security machines or firearms. The ban was extended in 1998 for an additional 5 years, and H.R. 3348 would extend this ban for an additional 10 years. The penalties will remain the same: any violation of the ban is punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to 5 years.

It is easy to see why this ban, now more than ever before, must be extended. This is not the time to put our Nation's airports in jeopardy by allowing individuals to pass through security with undetected firearms. Plastic firearms, which are real guns that can do real harm, can breach this security. We can prevent that by prohibiting the manufacture of plastic firearms in the first place, and that is what this bill does.

I would point out that both the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Department of Justice support this legislation. I would like to read into the RECORD a letter which I received 2 days ago from Chuck Cunningham, director of Federal affairs for the NRA:


Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On behalf of our 4 million members, I am writing to express our support for H.R. 3348, your legislation to extend the sunset of the restriction of undetectable firearms.

``It is very important to be absolutely clear about the history of this legislation. When originally passed in 1988, the Undetectable Firearms Act did not ban any existing firearm. The extension of this restriction would also not prohibit any firearm in production today. This legislation was and still is purely preventive. The sunset provision was included as a way to balance the possible future development of nonmetallic firearms against likely improvements in detection technology. The statute also allows the executive branch to reduce restrictions under the bill to adapt to those changes.

``Based on the current state of firearms and detection technology, we believe that a straight 10-year extension is an appropriate way to allow continued flexibility, while removing the issue beyond current political debates. Please let me know if we can be of assistance in the speedy passage of this legislation.


This is signed, ``Charles H. Cunningham, Director of Federal Affairs'' for the National Rifle Association.

I believe that this is commonsense legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his leadership on this issue. 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.

We could start by renewing the current assault weapons ban. We could also strengthen criminal background checks and close the gun show loophole so that rogue gun dealers will not be able to evade the current spirit of the law and sell guns to criminals and suspected terrorists. Finally, we need to protect us from firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or x-ray machines.

The bill before us today achieves the last of these objectives. It renews the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, also known as the Plastic Gun Law, which makes it illegal to manufacture, import, possess, or transfer a firearm that is not detectable by walk-through metal detectors or airport x-ray machines.

Renewing the ban on plastic guns is vital. The gun industry clearly has the technology to manufacture firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or x-ray machines. As early as 1986, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment determined that the ``technology does exist to manufacture certain firearms which would be completely or almost completely nonmetallic'' and that ``plastic handguns may be available on the commercial market quite soon.''

Indeed, shortly thereafter, in 1986, an attempt was made by Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi to purchase more than 100 firearms produced in Austria and constructed almost entirely out of hardened plastic.

With the ongoing war on terrorism, it is even more important than ever that we take an aggressive stance against dangerous weapons that make our society vulnerable to future terrorist-related attacks. H.R. 3348 was introduced with this in mind; and while I would strongly prefer to make this bill permanent and not just an extension, I think the extension is an important step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3348, as amended.

The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

My bad, the bill has indeed passed the House as described.

[alan]

Re this discussion, and House pasage of H.R. 3348, the following is interesting:

Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: On behalf of our 4 million members, I am writing to express our support for H.R. 3348, your legislation to extend the sunset of the restriction of undetectable firearms, this seemingly from the Director of Federal Affairs at NRA, one Charles Cunningham. Mr. Cunningham was alsao quoted in another post as having said of H.R. 3348 that it was "common sense legislation", which he "urged others to support".

In a phone conversation I had with a gentlemen from Federal Affairs earlier today, I was told that this last, was a "misquote". Seems like one of those "he said, she said" things.

In any event, interested parties might well inquire of their own congress critters, as to how this "suspension of the rules" was so readily obtained? This is the sort of thing that could be really dangerous, as is the case with another congressional-senate ploy, "unanimous consent", such as was used to pass Brady in The Senate, dead of the night, when almost nobody was there, thank you so much Robert Dole.

[MAKOwner]

That's a crock of ????, they need to revise to law to make it where no bill can be passed with less than 3/4s of the members there to vote, what a crock...

Don't see any progunners ramming a "machine gun ban" repeal through when only 25 people are there...