Congress voting on plastic gun ban

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ryanxia

Ryanxia

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
4,626
Location
'MURICA!
So should we be writing our reps over this? I haven't been keeping up and don't actually know what's in the Bill(s) but they are apparently going to be voting on this today/this week? Article says house voting today Senate next Monday it seems.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/12/03/republicans-vote-to-renew-gun-control-bill

While the NRA has not taken a position on the bill, other gun producers and up-and-coming gun manufacturers are worried the law may infringe on civil liberties as gun technologies become more accessible.
Click to expand...

"When they passed the law in the 1980s, it was a pat-yourself-on-the-back kind of law," says Cody Wilson, the director of Defense Distributed, a gun-making company. "Now, it will actually affect people. Now it becomes a way to regulate an entire digital industry."
Click to expand...
 
I saw the GOA alerts on Facebook with this headline. "Legislative Time Bomb Could Retroactively Outlaw Guns with Wood Stocks"

http://gunowners.org/alert12032013.htm


"So what if Holder determines that a wooden stock is a “major component”?

According to an expert we consulted, a wooden stock would produce an x-ray image which is "fuzzier" (less "accurate") than a metal gun would produce. Interestingly, a wholly plastic gun would also produce an x-ray image, according to this expert, although it would be "fuzzier" (less "accurate") than that of a metal gun.

So, for those Republicans who are talking about locking us into an extension of this statute that could ban lots of guns ... tell them, “please don't.”


I highly doubt they can retroactively "ban" guns. But I'd sure hate to see Grandpa's old shot gun come under the NFA because it contained too much wood.

EDIT:

Here is another GOA alert that is connected to the one above.

http://gunowners.org/12022013.htm

"Faced with a Collapse of America’s Health System, Schumer Pushes … More Gun Control"
 
Last edited:
I don't want to see this plastic gun legislation extended but I don't want to see any gun control legislation gain ground. If they could actually do anything with it I think they would have tried already as it has been on the books for quite some time. However I would not put anything past them. Anything they do in the way of trying to ban wooden stocked guns is doomed from the start as the "major component" of such guns is the receiver which is metal and is the serialized part which the BATFE considers a "firearm". So far they have not been able to ban pieces of wood nor consider them firearms. Glocks and other type guns are something they could go after but the only part I believe they could ban would be the reciever. IF and that is a BIG IF this happened the manufacturers could make a frame/reciever which conformed to the law and you put your favorite Glock or M&P parts on a new reciever which was produced to show an x-ray image and you are back in business. The most disturbing thing is Chuckie S. is trying to graft on a provision that would ban 3D printers which could be used to produce "plastic" guns. Should this succeed it would be a setback for everyone even those not even interested in guns. That probably won't get traction either none the less I have contacted my congress critters opposing this legislation mainly because I want them to understand we are out here and we are watching.
 
A simple renewal with no changes passed the house by voice vote. Assuming the senate does the same there will be no changes to what we have now.

I hope the senate stuffs it full of crap so the whole thing can die but for some reason doubt it.
 
The point has been debated elsewhere that airports don't use metal detectors anyways but the 'body scanners' we're so familiar with now. And even though some places still use them, it's already illegal to bring guns into most of those places anyways, so making it illegal to bring a plastic gun where a metal gun would be just as illegal is pointless.
 
Anything they do in the way of trying to ban wooden stocked guns is doomed from the start as the "major component" of such guns is the receiver which is metal and is the serialized part which the BATFE considers a "firearm".
Click to expand...

Herein lies the problem. The ATF determines what the law is, and then enforces it. That is not how the legal system is supposed to work, but "gun stuff" is considered too difficult and technical for Congress-critters, so they punt their authority over to the Tech Bureau (who have been fairly good to us over the years, but did change their minds --retroactively-- on open-bolt guns, PPSH trunnions, and all manner of things. They refused to heed the obvious instructions of the T/C supreme court case for years by claiming that ruling only applied to the particular model of rifle involved, and not all rifles with readily replaceable barrels (though they did eventually come around --for now). Assuming the ATF or any .gov "they" won't do something because it is illogical, or ridiculous, or a "power grab" is fools' folly; especially if it is a naked power grab we're talking about.

A simple renewal with no changes passed the house by voice vote
Click to expand...
Hmmm, we kinda got caught with our pants down, guys; I heard this was coming up at some point, but never heard when it was to be brought to the floor. Guys, this bill lasts for ten years. Ten years ago there were no iPhones. We have no idea what kind of innovation we are denying ourselves by this action. The purpose of the bill is simply to halt the progress of weapons technology --same as that ban on energy weapons.

Imagine if we'd banned CNC machining of gun components since a crook could "press a button" and make a part like they claim a printer can (it actually can't ;) ). Or sheet metal stamping of receivers. Imagine if we'd banned civilian development of smokeless powder firearms, guys. Unlike AWBs or UBCs, this bill has implications we can't even fathom, and it will be in effect for a very long time. Some people are predicting printing will be commonplace within five years --but not in the firearms industry, now.

TCB
 
barnbwt said:
Hmmm, we kinda got caught with our pants down, guys; Ten years ago there were no iPhones. We have no idea what kind of innovation we are denying ourselves by this action. The purpose of the bill is simply to halt the progress of weapons technology --same as that ban on energy weapons.

Imagine if we'd banned CNC machining of gun components since a crook could "press a button" and make a part like they claim a printer can (it actually can't ;) ). Or sheet metal stamping of receivers. Imagine if we'd banned civilian development of smokeless powder firearms, guys.
Click to expand...

Well said. Some of my concerns exactly, which is why I posted this thread because I wasn't informed on this particular Bill.
 
barnbwt said:
=Hmmm, we kinda got caught with our pants down, guys; I heard this was coming up at some point, but never heard when it was to be brought to the floor. Guys, this bill lasts for ten years. Ten years ago there were no iPhones. We have no idea what kind of innovation we are denying ourselves by this action. The purpose of the bill is simply to halt the progress of weapons technology --same as that ban on energy weapons.
Click to expand...
This is a big reason I'm pissed it was a voice vote. There is no way to know how our reps voted on this garbage.
 
Why don't we ask them? Not like they'd lie to us or anything :D (it would be funny to get back a majority of negative responses for a bill that was passed by a clear voice majority)

TCB
 
I’m still trying to figure out all their panic over plastic guns. Their argument that they can be gotten through metal detectors is irrelevant unless someone can invent ammunition that doesn’t have a metal case or bullet that would also get through the metal detector. Congress’s anti-gun tunnel vision is alive and well.

Oh, and good ol’ Schumer has an amendment to mandate that any plastic gun must have some degree of non-removable metal part.
 
Twiki357 said:
I’m still trying to figure out all their panic over plastic guns. Their argument that they can be gotten through metal detectors is irrelevant unless someone can invent ammunition that doesn’t have a metal case or bullet that would also get through the metal detector. Congress’s anti-gun tunnel vision is alive and well.

Oh, and good ol’ Schumer has an amendment to mandate that any plastic gun must have some degree of non-removable metal part.
Click to expand...
I hope you understand, they're about as detatched from reality as it's possible to get and still have a pulse.

It makes absolutely no difference if it's illogical and stupid. It's anti-gun and it's topical, makes them look like they're doing something, and distracts from the ACA fiasco, so they'll jump on it.

Many people tried to point out during the '94 AWB that the ban was purely cosmetic, but it didn't matter because it was a step in the direction they wanted to go. You cannot reason with someone who wants to see you completely disarmed. You wouldn't try and reason with a honey badger that attacked you. (See, I can be topical too).



Try to talk sense to individuals who aren't fully sold on the gun control agenda. Don't waste your breath on the ones who've bought it hook line and sinker.
 
MErl said:
A simple renewal with no changes passed the house by voice vote. Assuming the senate does the same there will be no changes to what we have now.

I hope the senate stuffs it full of crap so the whole thing can die but for some reason doubt it.
Click to expand...
it just extends a current one banning guns that don't contain enough metal to trigger X-ray machines or metal detectors. The law was originally signed by President Ronald Reagan and was renewed by Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, passing Congress with broad bipartisan support each time.
 
As MErl said, it seems they passed it as it. Whether the Senate will do that is unclear, this article makes an interesting observation.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/11th-hour-congress-debates-plastic-gun-ban-21077925

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said he and others will try then to add a new requirement that at least one component of the firing mechanism contain enough metal to be detectable in a magnetometer and also be undetachable. But with the National Rifle Association opposed to any change in the statute and many Democrats eager to avoid a new fight over gun controls going into an election year, the Senate is more likely to just pass the House version unamended. The House bill only requires that a plastic gun have some piece of metal in or on it, but it can be removable and doesn't have to be used to fire the weapon.
Click to expand...
 
Still, much ado about nothing. How old was this law they resurrected? All plastic guns still aren't on the market. We barely tapped the polymer AR lower market as it is. Uppers aren't selling very well, even in the holy grail of materials, carbon fiber.

It's not the tech, it's the public - no confidence in the materials. They don't make plastic engine blocks yet, although those were raced twenty years ago.

They day you or I can print off a new legal gun to take to the range is when the current $500,000 printers become a household commodity item.

Cheaper to steal a gun. "They" just don't want guns at all. Zactly why the POTUS denied Korea selling Garands back to us. "It might get in the hands of a criminal."

No, it might get in the hands of a citizen, and they don't want to see us empowered.
 
Tirod, what needs to be watched is what they may try to change when renewing this law. If the Senate does what Schumaker wants and makes it so you must have a non removable metal piece, there goes the legality of polymer AR lowers (remember it could be on the 'gun itself' AKA the receiver not just the overall firearm).

And while the technology isn't quite there, 10 years is a long time for technology to improve. Look at phones over the last 10 years as barnbwt mentioned.
 
It's not the tech, it's the public - no confidence in the materials.
Click to expand...
Case in point, polymer frame guns 20 years ago. Ten years is a long time.

Most likely, if the manufacturing process actually takes off before the bill's next go-around, a bill will be drafted to negate this current bill. Making the whole principle pretty silly from both a legal and practical standpoint, let alone likely or possible to implement. It really only makes a hair of sense from a political standpoint, and even then, only if you are a Democrat right now --which is why I'm a bit puzzled as to why this was rushed through the House (after all, what else have they rushed through in the last 4 years that wasn't naming post offices?)

Hard to guess the angle here; Boehner caving to unseen grabber pressure (unlikely), Boehner trying to trick the dems into another grab-a-thon in which they take heavy losses again, a mere token of good faith for the ongoing negotiations regarding immigration? Who knows. Maybe the Republicans simply don't work very hard to protect the 2nd Amendment, except where it is well defended by massive lobbying organizations

That the NRA had no opinion on this is highly strange, as well. I'm not one of those people who thinks the NRA is controlled by corporations, but it's not like they've historically favored gun owners at the expense of those interests in the past (922r, various import bans under Bubba, etc.), and it's not like they are encouraging people to build guns themselves from parts kits or raw materials instead of from commercial sources. It's not entirely their fault, since they do have to weigh the interests of their supporters when deciding policy, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking they shouldn't have or were unable to raise a big stink about this bill's renewal. This is definitely one of the "stupid and arbitrary" classes of "gun bill"

TCB
 
Guys - re: implications of travel with the subject, I travel a TON and the scanners pick up everything that's IN YOUR BAG. Every last piece of metal, plastic, fabric, paper, et al shows up (watch the screen next time you go through). As for the walkthroughs, if you get an Xray (versus the body scanner) any any major airport, it might not, but why the heck would we (or anyone else) want to pass a plastic firearm onto a plane? Always willing to be schooled on the implications of such Chuckie-inspired legislation (as noted above), but it feels like we're splitting hairs - does anyone really want to go back to the late 60's/early 70's airplane nightmares (read "The Skies Belong to Us")? I am all-in for opposing overreaching legislation, but this one scares even me. Even with the civil liberty issue, until someone invents a plastic ammo case that can handle the engineering, this seems a bit academic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Defense Distributed has its Federal Firearms License (3D printed Guns)
Replies
16
Views
1K
dogtown tom
dogtown tom
D
  • Locked
Defense Distributed Will Release Complete 3D printable Pistol in 30 days.
Replies
14
Views
1K
Ms_Dragon
M
L
  • Locked
Did the Senate vote to close the so called "Gun Show Loophole"
Replies
1
Views
455
Hkmp5sd
H
A
  • Locked
if your congress person voted "right", you might want to thank them.
Replies
7
Views
538
DaveTN
D
R
  • Locked
Mandatory Firearms Possession, Got to love Maine!!
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Warp
Warp
Back
Top