New call to action from GOA

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?

From the US Code https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18 section:922 edition:prelim)
§922. Unlawful acts
(p)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm-

(A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar; or

(B) any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component. Barium sulfate or other compounds may be used in the fabrication of the component.


(2) For purposes of this subsection-

(A) the term "firearm" does not include the frame or receiver of any such weapon;

(B) the term "major component" means, with respect to a firearm, the barrel, the slide or cylinder, or the frame or receiver of the firearm; and

(C) the term "Security Exemplar" means an object, to be fabricated at the direction of the Attorney General, that is-

(i) constructed of, during the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection, 3.7 ounces of material type 17–4 PH stainless steel in a shape resembling a handgun; and

(ii) suitable for testing and calibrating metal detectors:


Provided, however, That at the close of such 12-month period, and at appropriate times thereafter the Attorney General shall promulgate regulations to permit the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms previously prohibited under this subparagraph that are as detectable as a "Security Exemplar" which contains 3.7 ounces of material type 17–4 PH stainless steel, in a shape resembling a handgun, or such lesser amount as is detectable in view of advances in state-of-the-art developments in weapons detection technology.


(3) Under such rules and regulations as the Attorney General shall prescribe, this subsection shall not apply to the manufacture, possession, transfer, receipt, shipment, or delivery of a firearm by a licensed manufacturer or any person acting pursuant to a contract with a licensed manufacturer, for the purpose of examining and testing such firearm to determine whether paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. The Attorney General shall ensure that rules and regulations adopted pursuant to this paragraph do not impair the manufacture of prototype firearms or the development of new technology.

(4) The Attorney General shall permit the conditional importation of a firearm by a licensed importer or licensed manufacturer, for examination and testing to determine whether or not the unconditional importation of such firearm would violate this subsection.

(5) This subsection shall not apply to any firearm which-

(A) has been certified by the Secretary of Defense or the Director of Central Intelligence, after consultation with the Attorney General and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, as necessary for military or intelligence applications; and

(B) is manufactured for and sold exclusively to military or intelligence agencies of the United States.


(6) This subsection shall not apply with respect to any firearm manufactured in, imported into, or possessed in the United States before the date of the enactment of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.
 
I took GOA's word for the idea that making it permanent was a bad idea.
Not a good idea to trust any PAC. Once upon a time you could trust PACs like GOA to not spin things too much. Those days are long over. Everything these days is about getting you to click on the video so YouTube can show an ad, which generates income for YouTube, who then gives a small cut to the content creator. That's why a lot of videos have teaser images saying things like; "Hillary Clinton vows to confiscate all guns!!!!!" when it's really just about a speech she gave that had one line about gun violence being a problem in the inner city. Research the issue before you start getting alarmed and waving the bloody shirt!

ETA: And they're also hoping they can freak you out enough that you'll send them a donation! A lot of these groups are all about money anymore.
 
Not a good idea to trust any PAC. Once upon a time you could trust PACs like GOA to not spin things too much. Those days are long over. Everything these days is about getting you to click on the video so YouTube can show an ad, which generates income for YouTube, who then gives a small cut to the content creator. That's why a lot of videos have teaser images saying things like; "Hillary Clinton vows to confiscate all guns!!!!!" when it's really just about a speech she gave that had one line about gun violence being a problem in the inner city. Research the issue before you start getting alarmed and waving the bloody shirt!

ETA: And they're also hoping they can freak you out enough that you'll send them a donation! A lot of these groups are all about money anymore.
Generally I am able to evaluate statements. In this case I was handicapped by my lack of aptitude for understanding mechanical subjects. I still think they were saying something that might have made sense if I had properly understood it. Regarding GOA in particular, I must say that I have been very impressed with the briefs they have submitted in all the important 2A court cases.
 
Generally I am able to evaluate statements. In this case I was handicapped by my lack of aptitude for understanding mechanical subjects. I still think they were saying something that might have made sense if I had properly understood it. Regarding GOA in particular, I must say that I have been very impressed with the briefs they have submitted in all the important 2A court cases.
It does not look like that.
It seems that your posts here are all copy and paste regurgitation with no additional research on your part.
It is always best to research and verify information before taking ownership of it.
 
I don't really see how banning guns that can't be detected by metal detectors is not a violation of my 2nd amendment rights.
The Undetectable Firearms Act does not prohibit someone from their right to keep and bear arms. It just restricts what firearms can be manufactured or imported.

There is a difference and yes, its a slippery slope.
In the guise of "consumer protection" there are states that currently require safety tests and in the past at least one state had a law addressing the melting point of certain handguns.
 
The Undetectable Firearms Act does not prohibit someone from their right to keep and bear arms. It just restricts what firearms can be manufactured or imported.

There is a difference and yes, its a slippery slope.
In the guise of "consumer protection" there are states that currently require safety tests and in the past at least one state had a law addressing the melting point of certain handguns.
I know it doesn’t prohibit my right to keep and bear arms, but it is an infringement on that right. “Shall not be infringed” is what the second amendment says.
 
I know it doesn’t prohibit my right to keep and bear arms, but it is an infringement on that right. “Shall not be infringed” is what the second amendment says.
But you and I don't get to decide what is/is not an "infringement".......that's the role of the courts. And so far, a couple of hundred years later, SCOTUS hasn't ruled that "shall not be infringed" means what you think it means or want it to mean. ;)
 
And so far, a couple of hundred years later, SCOTUS hasn't ruled that "shall not be infringed" means what you think it means or want it to mean. ;)
....yet, everyday, someone somewhere on a gun forum, tells us all, exactly what the founding fathers really meant.;)
 
Back
Top