ban on "undectable firearms" extended

[alan]

According to thomas.loc.gov, the House version of that particular bit of mischief reads as follows:

To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms. (Introduced in House)

HR 3348 IH


108th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3348
To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 20, 2003
Mr. SENSENBRENNER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To reauthorize the ban on undetectable firearms.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE BAN ON UNDETECTABLE FIREARMS.

Section 2(f)(2) of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended--

(1) by striking `15' and inserting `25';

(2) in subparagraph (B)--

(A) by striking `and (h)' and inserting `through (o)'; and

(B) by striking `and (g)' and inserting `through (n)'; and

(3) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E) and inserting the following:

`(D) section 924(a)(1) of such title is amended by striking `this subsection, subsection (b), (c), or (f) of this section, or in section 929' and inserting `this chapter'; and

`(E) section 925(a) of such title is amended--

`(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922(p)'; and

`(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking `, except for provisions relating to firearms subject to the prohibitions of section 922(p),'.'.

Does anyone feel up to explaining, in English please, what the above mentioned song and dance, to use a polite phrase, actually says? Should it really be necessary for one to obtain the services of that proverbial Philadelphia Lawyer, in order to know what our law givers have actually said? I do not think so, but then perhaps I'm simply missing the more salient of a number of possible points.

 

[Mark Tyson]

Ah yes, those invisible guns again. They are a problem aren't they?

 

[DorGunR]

Ah yes, those invisible guns again. They are a problem aren't they?

So that's why I've never seen one in a gun display vase.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I think I have a few, I just can't see them

 

[BerettaNut92]

My Beretta magazines and socks are undetectable...I lose them all the time.

 

[Kharn]

I thought Ted Kennedy was throwing a hissy fit because an unnamed Senator (the person doesnt have to be revealed when using this procedure) put a "hold" on the Senate's version until further notice, effectively killing the bill.

Kharn

 

[alan]

Kharn:

That was the root of his original recent "hissy fit", see later posts.

In any event, sad to note, it seems as if the "hold" placed by that mysterious member of the senate didn't "hold" or became "unheld", for now, once again, in what passes for their singularly august wisdom, The Congress of the United States, in conjunction with The Senate, has banned something that, in fact, does not exist.

With such guardians of the virtue, of the virginity of the girl next door, not to mention the fact that same group guards apple pie, baseball and "mother", we can all rest well, and without fear, lay our weary heads down, while we sleep the sleep of the just.

 

[MicroBalrog]

I thought Ted Kennedy was throwing a hissy fit because an unnamed Senator (the person doesnt have to be revealed when using this procedure) put a "hold" on the Senate's version until further notice, effectively killing the bill.

Can we do that with other bills?

 

[Monkeyleg]

I don't understand why Sensenbrenner did this. He's very much a conservative, and pro-gun. There has to be a political angle to this that we don't know about.

 

[alan]

Monkeyleg:

A possible answer to your question could be the following.

He did it because he is a spineless, doubletalking, anti-gun pos. While the foregoing might be impolitic, or crude, possibly rude, that is what comes to mind, for in point of fact, back in 1988, when the legislation was originally passed, there were no "undectable firearms". There aren't any now either, so why "ban" something that doesn't exist? That question keeps popping up.

Of course, you might try asking him why he did what he did. You might get some sort of answer, who knows but that whatever you might possibly get could serve to satisfy your curiousity.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Alan, that's always a possibility when it comes to politicians, but Sensenbrenner is very principled. For example, he didn't allow the national CCW reciprocity bill out of his committee, which angered no small number of people here on THR. But his reasoning was that the bill violated states' rights, a position I can understand. He voted against the 1994 "evil black rifle" ban, and is opposed to extending it next year. And it's his committee through which the ban's extension will have to move (and I suspect he'll keep the bill bottled up in committee).

Like I said, there has to be something going on that we don't know about.

 

[alan]

Monkeyleg:

As you noted, "Like I said, there has to be something going on that we don't know about", the remaining question is WHAT?

By the way, re the "states rights" thing you mentioned, does Sensenbrenner believe that requiring the several states to recognize marriages performed in another state would be a violation of states rights too?

Obviously, this is a question that you can't answer, except perhaps to guess, however I do not believe that such a claim, if he actually made same, will hold even the slightest bit of water.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Alan, if you find out what that "What" is, don't tell me. Tell Matt Drudge. You might make a few bucks off the story.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Forcing through a bill banning something that doesn't exist doesn't cost us anything. And the anti's could get up to all sorts of mischief if you give them a chance. Banning pistols with a plastic frame, for example. Or requiring a certain percentage of steel in a handgun. Better to head it off now.