New call to action from GOA

[old lady new shooter]

GOA reports that the NDAA contains a provision that could affect pretty much all gun owners. The Undetectable Firearms Law of 1988 required every firearm to contain at least 3.7 oz of steel. Back then that wasn't much of a problem but today there are for example lightweight pocket pistols that don't comply. OK, not yet a universal problem. But there is another provision that affects pretty much all gun owners: the "major components" requirement. Ben talks pretty fast and he threw in some other stuff I think was intended as an example of ATF mission creep insanity, but I think he said the critical point was all the "major components" have to be visible in an x-ray of the gun. Which I guess plastic parts are not. Which parts are "major components"? I dunno but I bet ATF can change that at will. Now the nasty part: the Senate threw in at the last minute a change making this permanent, unlike other provisions that get enacted for 10 years. This is only in the Senate version so it's possible to get rid of it before final passage if everybody persuades their respective senators and representatives to remove the permanent authorization of the Undetectable Firearms Act from the final version of the NDAA. The number to call is 202-224-3121.

Being that I am not very mechanically savvy, I strongly urge everyone here to watch the GOA video to better understand GOA's reasoning than what I was able to explain. If someone can provide a clear one- or two-sentence summary of what we should say when we call (i.e. WHY we want them to vote to remove this), please post.

 

[dogtown tom]

GOA reports that the NDAA contains a provision that could affect pretty much all gun owners. The Undetectable Firearms Law of 1988 required every firearm to contain at least 3.7 oz of steel. Back then that wasn't much of a problem but today there are for example lightweight pocket pistols that don't comply. OK, not yet a universal problem. But there is another provision that affects pretty much all gun owners: the "major components" requirement. Ben talks pretty fast and he threw in some other stuff I think was intended as an example of ATF mission creep insanity, but I think he said the critical point was all the "major components" have to be visible in an x-ray of the gun. Which I guess plastic parts are not. Which parts are "major components"? I dunno but I bet ATF can change that at will. Now the nasty part: the Senate threw in at the last minute a change making this permanent, unlike other provisions that get enacted for 10 years. This is only in the Senate version so it's possible to get rid of it before final passage if everybody persuades their respective senators and representatives to remove the permanent authorization of the Undetectable Firearms Act from the final version of the NDAA. The number to call is 202-224-3121.

Being that I am not very mechanically savvy, I strongly urge everyone here to watch the GOA video to better understand GOA's reasoning than what I was able to explain. If someone can provide a clear one- or two-sentence summary of what we should say when we call (i.e. WHY we want them to vote to remove this), please post.

Another silly thread based on false information.
The Undetectable Firearms Law of 1988 (actually the The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988) DOES NOT require "every firearm to contain at least 3.7 oz of steel." Read the actual law and not watch stupid GOA YouTube vidiots and you would know that.

Heck, you don't even need to read the actual law because Wikipedia gives a darn good synopsis of it: Undetectable Firearms Act
The United States Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. § 922(p)) makes it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm that is not as detectable by walk-through metal detection as a security exemplar containing 3.7 oz (105 g) of steel, or any firearm with major components that do not generate an accurate image before standard airport imaging technology.

If GOA doesn't know what "exemplar" means, maybe they should hold off on making vidiots of themselves.

 

[12Bravo20]

The steel barrel alone meets the weight requirement. I weighed an OEM G19 9mm barrel and an OEM G22 40 S&W barrel and both barrels weigh 3.7 ounces on my kitchen scale. I don't have an OEM G17 9mm barrel to weigh. Then add the steel rails in the frame along with the steel slide and all the metal internal parts and there is no way to get a pistol past a functioning metal detector.

While I do NOT agree with trying to slip in any kind of gun control into the yearly NDAA, making the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 permanent is a moot point since there is enough steel in pistols to be detected.

 

[jdc1244]

Another silly thread based on false information.

Indeed.

 

[old lady new shooter]

GOA sent out an email today which I posted in Activism at https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...ble-firearms-act-of-1988.921383/post-12679228. It provides more context around their recommendation to oppose the reauthorization, especially given that the Senate version snuck in a provision to make it permanent. GOA has been one of the strongest voices for preserving the Second Amendment, indeed regarded by many as the only no-compromise group. In light of this I suggest reading their email as I may have misstated something in my attempt to summarize the video, since as noted mechanical things are not my strong suit.

 

[old lady new shooter]

The steel barrel alone meets the weight requirement. I weighed an OEM G19 9mm barrel and an OEM G22 40 S&W barrel and both barrels weigh 3.7 ounces on my kitchen scale. I don't have an OEM G17 9mm barrel to weigh. Then add the steel rails in the frame along with the steel slide and all the metal internal parts and there is no way to get a pistol past a functioning metal detector.

While I do NOT agree with trying to slip in any kind of gun control into the yearly NDAA, making the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 permanent is a moot point since there is enough steel in pistols to be detected.

Apparently it's now possible to 3D print a gun with no metal parts. However, GOA said in their email "It's 2023 and detecting polymers and non-metallic items has been standard practice for scanning machines for years."

 

[12Bravo20]

Apparently it's now possible to 3D print a gun with no metal parts. However, GOA said in their email "It's 2023 and detecting polymers and non-metallic items has been standard practice for scanning machines for years."

Yeah good luck firing more than 1 single round off with a barrel made from anything except steel. And there will still be steel parts in a 3D printed pistol too. There is no getting around the fact that one has to use steel parts for strikers/firing pins, trigger bars, etc.

I've been quite active in the 80% build community and while some have had luck with 3D printed frames, they still have to use manufactured steel parts such as the barrel and internal parts. Plus most materials used to 3D print stuff just won't hold up to the stress of a pistol for very long.

 

[theotherwaldo]

As a design experiment back in the 1990's I re-designed a 12 gauge flare gun and cartridge to include no metals at all.
It wasn't particularly difficult, although I wouldn't want to fire it too many times.
Admittedly, I never built a prototype... .

 

[hso]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2670/all-actions

The bill is still in the House so what did Schumer do to what when if it is still in the House?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2670/all-actions

 

[Jamie B]

Apparently it's now possible to 3D print a gun with no metal parts. However, GOA said in their email "It's 2023 and detecting polymers and non-metallic items has been standard practice for scanning machines for years."

Not one that will work
You need to actually vet information prior to posting.
Regurgitation is not an accurate method for posting information.
When regurgitating a message, you become the owner of the message you are promoting, and, on turn, then responsible for it's content.

 

[dogtown tom]

Apparently it's now possible to 3D print a gun with no metal parts. However, GOA said in their email "It's 2023 and detecting polymers and non-metallic items has been standard practice for scanning machines for years."

Absolutely true, the first one was the Glock 7. It's a porcelain gun made in Germany in 1990. It doesn't show up on airport X-ray machines and it costs more than what you make in a month.

 

[LiveLife]

Apparently it's now possible to 3D print a gun with no metal parts. However, GOA said in their email "It's 2023 and detecting polymers and non-metallic items has been standard practice for scanning machines for years."

Absolutely true, the first one was the Glock 7. It's a porcelain gun made in Germany in 1990. It doesn't show up on airport X-ray machines and it costs more than what you make in a month.

I am sure you were joking ... "Glock 7" is a fictional gun mentioned in the movie "Die Hard 2" - https://diehard.fandom.com/wiki/Glock_7

 

[dogtown tom]

I am sure you were joking ... "Glock 7" is a fictional gun mentioned in the movie "Die Hard 2" - https://diehard.fandom.com/wiki/Glock_7

Ya think?

 

[old lady new shooter]

Sadly, the Senate passed the bill with the provision that the Undetectable Firearms Act is permanent. The vote was 86 to 11.

Bear in mind that this was not a standalone bill but rather was inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act., which is considered must-pass legislation, which explains what some may perceive as the odd grouping of who voted for and against.

Here is the roll call by vote position, from https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1181/vote_118_1_00212.htm:

YEAs ---86​

Baldwin (D-WI)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blackburn (R-TN)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boozman (R-AR)
Britt (R-AL)
Brown (D-OH)
Budd (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Capito (R-WV)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Cotton (R-AR)
Cramer (R-ND)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Ernst (R-IA)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fetterman (D-PA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagerty (R-TN)
Hassan (D-NH)
Hawley (R-MO)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hickenlooper (D-CO)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kelly (D-AZ)
Kennedy (R-LA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lujan (D-NM)
Lummis (R-WY)
Manchin (D-WV)
Marshall (R-KS)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Moran (R-KS)
Mullin (R-OK)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Ossoff (D-GA)
Padilla (D-CA)
Peters (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Ricketts (R-NE)
Risch (R-ID)
Romney (R-UT)
Rosen (D-NV)
Rounds (R-SD)
Rubio (R-FL)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schmitt (R-MO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Scott (R-FL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Sinema (I-AZ)
Smith (D-MN)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Tillis (R-NC)
Tuberville (R-AL)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warner (D-VA)
Warnock (D-GA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Young (R-IN)

NAYs ---11​

Booker (D-NJ)
Braun (R-IN)
Lee (R-UT)
Markey (D-MA)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Sanders (I-VT)
Vance (R-OH)
Warren (D-MA)
Welch (D-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3​

Casey (D-PA)
Durbin (D-IL)
Scott (R-SC)

 

[DoubleMag]

MY senator was ''one of the few'' voting against

 

[dogtown tom]

Sadly, the Senate passed the bill with the provision that the Undetectable Firearms Act is permanent. The vote was 86 to 11.

Bear in mind that this was not a standalone bill but rather was inserted into the National Defense Authorization Act., which is considered must-pass legislation, which explains what some may perceive as the odd grouping of who voted for and against.

Sadly, you can't see the trees for the forest. It's NOT a bad law. In fact it's a very useful law.
Amendments don't make it into a law without approval by Congress. If the UFA is so abhorrent, why did the most ardent Second Amendment Senators vote in favor?

And note that the majority of the no votes are liberal Dems and Republican kooks.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Sadly, you can't see the trees for the forest. It's NOT a bad law. In fact it's a very useful law.
Amendments don't make it into a law without approval by Congress. If the UFA is so abhorrent, why did the most ardent Second Amendment Senators vote in favor?

And note that the majority of the no votes are liberal Dems and Republican kooks.

I'm interested to hear your analysis of how the UFA is useful, I'm sure you know every provision. I took GOA's word for the idea that making it permanent was a bad idea.

The votes are not for or against the provision regarding the UFA, but to approve the National Defense Authorization Act, that's why they shook out the way they did, the NDAA is considered a must-pass thing by everybody except those who want to get rid of our armed forces, and I guess a few libertarian-leaning R's. I'd like to see the woke stuff disappear from our military because I believe it's weakening our forces, some of the No votes may be coming from the same place.

 

[dogtown tom]

I'm interested to hear your analysis of how the UFA is useful, I'm sure you know every provision. I took GOA's word for the idea that making it permanent was a bad idea.

Next time you go through a TSA line you'll know the answer.

GOA thinks its a way to keep people from 3D printing their own firearms.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I don't fly any more. But I would appreciate a serious answer.

Stupidest experience with TSA was the time they asked me if I have any food and I had to unpack all of it, open package of pita bread, container of blueberries, other similarly dangerous stuff.

 

[dogtown tom]

I don't fly any more. But I would appreciate a serious answer.

Stupidest experience with TSA was the time they asked me if I have any food and I had to unpack all of it, open package of pita bread, container of blueberries, other similarly dangerous stuff.

It IS a serious answer. If you dont understand, I'm sorry.

 

[Balrog]

It IS a serious answer. If you dont understand, I'm sorry.

The answer may be serious, but to those of us who do not fly, we have no way of knowing what you mean since we don't go through TSA lines. Is there no way to better articulate the reason?

 

[Jamie B]

I'm interested to hear your analysis of how the UFA is useful, I'm sure you know every provision. I took GOA's word for the idea that making it permanent was a bad idea.

The votes are not for or against the provision regarding the UFA, but to approve the National Defense Authorization Act, that's why they shook out the way they did, the NDAA is considered a must-pass thing by everybody except those who want to get rid of our armed forces, and I guess a few libertarian-leaning R's. I'd like to see the woke stuff disappear from our military because I believe it's weakening our forces, some of the No votes may be coming from the same place.

Never ‘take someone else’s word‘
Do your own research and actually verify the issue at hand - don’t just regurgitate the message - either way, once you communicate that message to others you own it and are accountable for it.

 

[dogtown tom]

The answer may be serious, but to those of us who do not fly, we have no way of knowing what you mean since we don't go through TSA lines. Is there no way to better articulate the reason?

Well, I guess I was wrong about the point of the Undetectable Firearms Act being obvious. Heck, one doesn't have to actually FLY to have know how metal detectors work.

TSA security lines have passengers go through metal detectors before they board a flight.
Further, USPS/FedEx/UPS and US government agencies make use of metal detectors to examine packages in both domestic and international shipments.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Well, I guess I was wrong about the point of the Undetectable Firearms Act being obvious. Heck, one doesn't have to actually FLY to have know how metal detectors work.

TSA security lines have passengers go through metal detectors before they board a flight.
Further, USPS/FedEx/UPS and US government agencies make use of metal detectors to examine packages in both domestic and international shipments.

Is it true that the UFA requires "all major components" of a firearm to be visible on an xray? How are "major components" defined? Is it the case that all these components are always metal?

 

[12Bravo20]

It is really easy to make polymers show up on X-rays or detected by metal detectors. Metal powder is added to the polymer mix to do this. Plus the majority of internal parts such as trigger bars and firing pins are metal. And of course barrels and slides are made from hardened steel. Yes there are some all aluminum slides out there for rimfire pistols but those are still detectable. Even the Polymer Glock G44 slide has a steel insert inside of it along with the metal internal parts.