New York Law To Ban 3D Printed Guns Could Also Ban All Glocks

Status
Not open for further replies.

dc dalton

Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
653
Location
NE PA
An incredibly poorly worded NY bill leaves room for interpretation as to whether Glock handguns could be illegal. The bill states '(4) SUCH PERSON KNOWINGLY POSSESSES AN UNDETECTABLE AND UNTRACEABLE MACHINE-GUN, FIREARM OR MAGAZINE DIGITALLY MADE AS DEFINED BY SUBDIVISION TWENTY-FIVE OF SECTION 265.00 OF THIS ARTICLE, RIFLE OR SHOTGUN WHOSE FRAME OR RECEIVER IS COMPOSED OF OR BUILT WITH OR MANUFACTURED WITH OR FABRICATED WITH MATERIALS THAT ARE NOT DETECTABLE BY A METAL DETECTOR OR MAGNETOMETER WHEN SET AT STANDARD CALIBRATION.

Note the bolded part. If interpreted incorrectly (ignoring the digitally made) this would then outlaw all Glocks due to their polymer receiver.

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-New-York-Gun-Law-AO7671/State-Law/9354
 
When the AF sent me to South Carolina in 1987, I arrived with my new Glock 17. None of the gun stores could sell them because SC had a Saturday Night Special law that outlawed guns due to the temperature at which the frame melted. So my Glock was somewhat of a novelty, and I suppose I could have sold it for double the $286 I paid in Oklahoma.

The kicker to the story is that the law remained until SLED wanted to carry Glocks, at which time the law was rewritten.
 
When the AF sent me to South Carolina in 1987, I arrived with my new Glock 17. None of the gun stores could sell them because SC had a Saturday Night Special law that outlawed guns due to the temperature at which the frame melted. So my Glock was somewhat of a novelty, and I suppose I could have sold it for double the $286 I paid in Oklahoma.

The kicker to the story is that the law remained until SLED wanted to carry Glocks, at which time the law was rewritten.

The law was rewritten to apply to metal frames, but actually as of a year or so back the entire law was repealed. Up until about 10 years ago we also had a 1 handgun per 30 days law as well.

I don't know what was going on way back when but for a conservative state SC had some quirky gun laws. Thankfully we're actually managing to get many repealed at the state level.
 
Sounds like a childish attempt at banning all handguns since most frames are now made of materials that are not metal. It is the "or" that will be the problem it does not say that the gun is not detectable, but the frame or receiver which is the same thing, what about the slide? Written by someone that knows nothing about handguns.

Jim
 
This is plain stupidity. Glocks ARE detectable by metal detectors. They do have metal parts in them. Even in the Liberator pistol, there still needs to be a metal firing pin.
 
This is plain stupidity. Glocks ARE detectable by metal detectors. They do have metal parts in them. Even in the Liberator pistol, there still needs to be a metal firing pin.

Read the legislation to the letter. It doesn't say that the entire gun can't be undetectable - just the FRAME.

The bare frame of a Glock is completely polymer and most certainly isn't detectable by a metal detector.

Remember, there's no room for "You know what we meant." in legislation. The law says what it says, and this law bans based on the material of the frame and not the whole gun.
 
There are just too many idiots out there without enough to do...
 
Uhhhh................there's ALREADY a Federal law that says the same thing.......

mgmorden ....The bare frame of a Glock is completely polymer and most certainly isn't detectable by a metal detector.....
Are you sure about that?;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undetectable_Firearms_Act_of_1988


Here is the cite:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922
US Code - Section 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.




Now, the Glock 7 doesn't show up on X-ray machines but it costs more than what you make in a month.;)
 
Last edited:
My memory may be failing, but IIRC Glock added a metal powder mix to its polymer so the frames will show on an Xray and light up a metal detector. It is a pretty fair bet that other users of polymer have done the same.

Jim
 
:fire: Really, do they pay 6th graders to write up these things? Is it not OBVIOUS that even if you did pass the law it will be unenforceable? Thats like the expanded back ground check. How would they enforce it without registration? Someone is thinking too hard about too little. On a side note how would one go about getting these laws and ones similar repealed? There has to be a way, unfortunately I remember everything from civics class. :eek:
 
Pretty uniformly poor draftsmenship in most anti-firearm legislation. Likely reflects deep lack of knowledge about the subject matter by the persons do the drafting.

Glock frames also have "not conventionally removable" hardened metal inserts cast into the bare frame on which the slide reciprocates. The newer generation production frame polymer has radio-opaque materials as part of the mix. (Probably after 1st generation).
 
> Metal parts go into the frame to produce a fully working firearm, but
> the frame itself is a cast polymer part.

The plastic frame and steel rails are molded together in one piece; that piece has one part number, and it's also the serial numbered receiver. Glock doesn't list or sell just the steel rails or plastic part separately.
 
But the really important question is are they going to ban 3d soda's as well? To bad we're can't pack up NY,NJ, and CA and send them to the middle east where they belong.
 
Dogtown, the federal law doesn't appear to read quite the same way. It only states that the firearm must still be detectable even if its grips, stocks, and magazines are removed. Once stripped down to the "bare frame", it is no longer considered a "firearm" for purposes of the law cited.
 
The (GLOCK) plastic frame and steel rails are molded together in one piece; that piece has one part number, and it's also the serial numbered receiver.

True! I'm surprised how many folks think the rear steel rails are removable from a Glock.

But the rails ARE removable from several other guns, like the XD/XDM series, the Sig 250 and a few more.

Further, there are a couple that do not have metal frame rails at all, such as the Ruger P95, P97 and 345

Add to that the carbon fiber or similar material AR lowers that are (currently) available.
 
MedWheeler Dogtown, the federal law doesn't appear to read quite the same way. It only states that the firearm must still be detectable even if its grips, stocks, and magazines are removed. Once stripped down to the "bare frame", it is no longer considered a "firearm" for purposes of the law cited.

Not true. You didn't read the entire law:
US Code - Section 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
;....
 
^^ Dogtown, what I quoted is true, but only in reference to "firearms." I did indeed fail to recognize the second prohibition on "major components" of firearms. In the statute, the word "or" separates and confirms the two prohibitions, so both are indeed unlawful. So, yes, the law, when put together, does essentially "prohibit" everything the NY proposal would.
 
MedWheeler ^^ Dogtown, what I quoted is true, but only in reference to "firearms." I did indeed fail to recognize the second prohibition on "major components" of firearms. In the statute, the word "or" separates and confirms the two prohibitions, so both are indeed unlawful. So, yes, the law, when put together, does essentially "prohibit" everything the NY proposal would.
Which is what I said in my first post. This NY proposal is meaningless since Federal law already requires ALL firearms show up on x-ray.

Whole thread is silly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top