3D gun (courtesy forbes,com)

“The U.S. House approved Tuesday a 10-year extension of an existing federal law banning guns that can go undetected by metal detectors and X-ray machines,” usatoday.com reports. Upon seeing the news on Twitter, terrorists and criminals immediately stopped any and all plans to bring so-called plastic gun through security checkpoints. “That’s it, we’re through,” said Tanya X. “We’ve cancelled our order for a 3D printer. We’ll either use a proper gun and take out the guards like that Navy shooter or spend the money on education for our children.” So how did House Republicans vote on the measure, a clear violation of the Second Amendment stricture against any and all firearms regulation? Well . . .

The measure passed on an overwhelming bipartisan vote despite reservations from Democrats who would like to expand the scope of the law to address concerns about 3-D printing technology, which can produce solid objects out of digital models – including firearms – and did not exist commercially when the law was first enacted. Without significant opposition, the House did not record members’ votes on the bill.

Tricky Republicans, eh? Now we’ll never know who on the right (politically speaking) threw American gun owners under the bus. Again. Still.

As for those desired “expansions” to the Undetectable Firearms Act, there’s your trouble. Rumor has it Senator Schumer and his civilian disarmament buddies want the law to ban the production of plastic gun parts. Like . . . magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets.

If Senate Dems leave the Act as is—the most likely scenario—a rubber stamp in the Senate and a signature will surely follow. If they don’t, well, someone better read the new law very, very carefully. And make sure it isn’t hustled through like the 1968 Gun Control Act. What say you NRA?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

171 COMMENTS

  1. Rats : ( I am surprised the NRA didn’t argue more forcefully against this law. The facts were on their side. Maybe they were afraid that pro-gun legislators were too prone to having misleading ads run against them about how Congressman or Senator so-and-so refused to sign legislation banning undetectable guns…?

      • I believe you will find that GOA, JPFO, and the SAF ALL support the Second Amendment AS WRITTEN. What are you, an NRA mole?

        • If that is the case, can you explain why Gura is anti NFA weapons? Can you explain why Gottlieb wants mandatory background checks? Can you explain why the GOA would rather that permanent residents not be allowed to bear arms? LOL

      • The NRA WROTE the undetectable firearms act. This is complete, total, non-arguable fact. Their version was the one that got passed back then and renewed now. Its written specifically to ban weapons that don’t exist. Even the liberator pistol is legal by it due to the firing pin.

      • I agree with Leonard.

        The NRA receives rather large contributions from “gun manufacturer’s” – which is fine. However these gun manufacturers are in the business of making and selling guns. It is probably not in their best interests if everyone can print them at home. So… connecting the dots – the NRA must choose between principal… and their heavy contributors (conflict of interest). The bottom line is the NRA and SAF, etc are funded and represent those that fund them – not the 2A. They are by definition… “Compromising.”

        That said… they support “some” of our pursuits and partially support the 2A. Since they are in fact providing “something” I am still and member and will continue to be so.

        As a side note – Leonard – when you make a vague statement such as “NRA doesn’t support 2A!” It is kind of a sensationalist statement that requires clarification which you should have made in the first place.

    • I think this was a “pick your battles” move by the NRA. Time will tell how that plays out in the midterms though.

    • They have to pick their battles. This seems like 25 more years of irrelevance.

      It’s funny, though, many in here (not you, that I’m aware of), bad mouth and belittle the NRA at every turn. Then, when the legislation hits the fan, the cri de coeur is “Where’s the NRA! They need to stop this!”

      • As long as the bill stays the same its totally irrelevant. Even the entirely plastic liberator passes with its metal firing pin. If Schumer gets his version that bans all custom non metal parts (which is how Holder will interpret it), gloves are off. Its game over for formerly legal home custom gunsmithing.

  2. Is this just an extension of the same one from the 80’s? If so I’m kinda ok with that. At least I don’t have to fear the ATF smashing down my door because my 10/22’s stock is made of plastic.

    • That’s my question. Did they add language expressly against printed guns and gun parts or just extend the current law?

        • No, because I cannot follow links on my phone. But the TTAG article has been updated to be more clear, thanks.

      • Its an extension of the existing one. Whole gun just has to be detected, same as always, making the liberator legal since it has a metal firing pin.

        • The liberator has to have a metal plate attached to make it legal — at least that’s what the directions say.

    • I’m really happy it wasn’t as bad as it could have been, but if the TSA installs blind xray machines in enough airports to qualify as ‘common,’ everything is banned. Creative incompetence. Well, its the extension of the $10k toilet seat. (Crapper doubled as a jump seat for a combat aircraft, needed to be safety rated for 10g’s.)

      • “I’m really happy it wasn’t as bad as it could have been”

        That’s the HUGE pink elephant in the room right there. “Not as bad as it could have been” gets twisted and tweaked and modified until it becomes worse than you ever thought possible.

        Though we may only have to “compromise” a little each time it all adds up to a giant skull fu**ing in the end because we’re the only ones actually giving in the “compromise”.

      • And something as dense as black ironwoid or ebony, which won’t even float, would actually be easier to make into an undetectable firearm that’s less likely to blow up in your hands!

    • Did you read the piece AT ALL? The measure has the potential to ban POLYMER MAGAZINES. DAMN, READ before you post!

      • The measure that got renewed doesn’t. The one Schumer is gonna parade around to the Senate does. Hopefully Dems just say f*** it and pass the house version and take it as a win.

    • Those same Republicans just extended this act though. The modern GOP cares as much about the 2nd Amendment as the Democrats do.

      • My remarks were sarcastic. The NRA is as anti-gun as republicans who voted to renew the law. Democrats and republicans are essentially the same, neither care for the 2A as written.

    • I’m sure my scumbag Republican representative (who also voted in favor of continuing the NSA spying on Americans) voted for it. Seriously, Republicans need to be lined up with the Democrats and publicly hanged for treason.

  5. A pointless law that keeps being passed by idiots. I wish all laws had expiration dates though and had to be voted on every so often. That way there is a chance that bad laws will be revisited over time instead of adding and adding to the instant victimless felon pool.

    • I actually think every new piece of legislation and every new regulation should come with quantifiable success measures. If it doesn’t achieve the success measures within a specified time frame it gets repealed.

      If they can’t produce quantifiable success measures, and can’t define when it will start working, then it was a bad idea to begin with and shouldn’t be a law.

  6. The measure passed on an overwhelming bipartisan vote despite reservations from Democrats who would like to expand the scope of the law to address concerns about 3-D printing technology, which can produce solid objects out of digital models – including firearms – and did not exist commercially when the law was first enacted.

    So is the law that was passed solely an extension of the prior one, or does it have the additional stuff tacked on? And if not, will the Senate tack those things on? If it can be used to ban magazines of more than ten rounds, why isn’t the NRA harping more about it?

    • is your reading comprehension that low, try reading what you linked a few more times it answers the question you ask right below the answer…

    • “why isn’t the NRA harping more about it?”

      Because the NRA is not a 2A advocate as written. They may support limited gun rights, but not the 2A as written. No, large 2A organization supports the 2A as written.

        • The NRA press statement said nothing about them being against the law. The fact is that the NRA was and is all for this legislation.
          The NRA is pro gun control , anti-2A

        • What the hell is this Embody guy talking about. He spouts off about the NRA but doesn’t clarify. NRA, from my cold dead hands, what’s pro gun control and anti 2A about that?

        • “With the expiration of the so-called Undetectable Firearms Act (UFA) rapidly approaching on December 9th, misinformation over this issue and NRA’s position on it has unfortunately reached a heightened level. We would like to make our position clear. The NRA strongly opposes ANY expansion of the Undetectable Firearms Act.” LOL

          They don’t oppose the act they simply opposed the EXPANSION.

          The NRA is anti -2A. If they were pro 2A they would have said they were against renewing the law.

        • The NRA wrote the 1988 or whatever undetectable firearms act. Its their baby. The reason they haven’t been vocal against it is because they don’t want to remind people they wrote it.

    • I don’t think anyone has produced a reliable firearm that wouldn’t be detected anyway. There’s a lot of other stuff that’s way more infuriating than this (like the continued closure of the machine gun registry, for example).

    • Yup, there still hasn’t been a functional undetectable gun made that this law would ban, 30 years later. You can certainly make the whole thing out of plastic, but its not going to fire without a metal firing pin or bullets. Even a sort of blackpowder flintlock would need a cap or flint and steel striker, using marble or somesuch for a projectile.

  8. If I understand this correctly NONE of the provisions asked for by Schumer are in this bill. This is the same bill that was renewed in 2004. Anybody else get that?

  10. I am in no way surprised by this. I didn’t think Chuck Schumer’s add-ons were going to happen, but neither did I expect that the original law would fail to be renewed.

    • I’m not surprised either–it was almost a given. This morning someone was reporting: “If this law isn’t extended then all those undetectable guns will be back on the street.” This is how most people see it. They don’t ask: “When were they ever on the street?” Or, “If they’re undetectable, how do we know they weren’t still on the street all this while?” Or, “If they’re undetectable, how do we know they won’t be there now?” But they’ve been conditioned to say, “Nobody needs an undetectable gun.”
      Schumer is like a a teenaged boy saying,”I’ll only put the head in–I promise. You’ll barely feel it.”

      • You can’t take away imaginary property rights. As much as I think all these laws are stupid, the current law does not violate any bodies rights, because there is no sick thing as a Working undetectable gun. Congress could also go on to outlaw unicorn farms and perpetual motion machines. That said the changes proposed in the senate are bad.

        • What are you talking about? The Liberator at the top of the page is. And this law outlaws any gun with less than 3.6 ounces of metal — I’m guessing many guns could be made with less than that except for this law.

          Besides it doesn’t matter if something is available or not — an “imaginary property rights” law would forbid it in the future.

  11. This is not a big whup. Just return to the status quo ante. Chuck the Schmuck wanted to use this bill to enact some actual restrictions on good old fashion guns. I chalk this up as a finger in the eye of the gun grabbers. I suspect the House leadership will tell Shumer that this the only legislation on guns that will see the light of day this year.

    • If you’re dandy with the thing as is, you don’t believe in the Second Amendment. So go ahead and admit it.

    • 10 votes and a ****ing voice vote at that?

      They really shouldn’t be allowed to do that. Everyone should have to go on record.

        • Three Georgia Reps are running for Senate and all claim they are pro-gun.

          When it mattered, Broun, Kingston and Gingrey were too busy to stand up for the Constitution.

  13. Yeah, it sucks but as long as they’re just extending the current law unmodified for another five years or whatever I don’t care that much.

    The technology still isn’t there yet.

    • The 2A is being infringed or it is not. It is nice to know you are one of those who doesn’t “care that much” yet.

      “First they came for the Communists,
      and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Communist.

      Then they came for the Socialists,
      and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Socialist.

      Then they came for the trade unionists,
      and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

      Then they came for me,
      and there was no one left to speak for me.”

      • I don’t care about plastic firearms technology that doesn’t exist yet and won’t for god knows how many years.

        I don’t agree with the law but I can’t give much of a damn about it being renewed either.

        And for the record, I appreciate your zeal and extremism in the defense of liberty but you strike me as a person who doesn’t know how to wisely pick and choose their battles.

        • “And for the record, I appreciate your zeal and extremism in the defense of liberty but you strike me as a person who doesn’t know how to wisely pick and choose their battles.”

          Actually that characterization would better suit Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed infamy, the one man PT Barnum who’s self promotion caused all this mess. None of this would be happening now were it not for his worldwide look-at-me-I-can-haz-plastic-gun tour.

          Thanks again Cody.

          • He is calling attention to the uselessness of anti-gun legislation, in his own particular way.

            But I guess that just flew right past you.

        • While that may have been his intention (and frankly I don’t buy that for a second) that isn’t what he achieved.

          He made a whole bunch of ignorant reactionaries painfully aware of something that they had never heard of. Nor understand. Who are now going to attempt to make felons out of everyone who prints a gun part. Or anything resembling a gun part.

          The guy who jumps up and down and screams “We’re gonna attack tonight, right through those gates and there is nothing you can do about it!” is not really helping your side. Or, more directly, from Sun Tzu, “Every battle is won before it is fought” and “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”

      • Calm down. I also don’t care if they outlaw intergalactic travel because that technology doesn’t exist yet either. Worry about them outlawing things that DO exist now, like magazines.

        • A more apt analogy would be if congress were to outlaw the research and development of any form of intergalactic travel. It may not be feasible now, but they’ll be damned if anyone ever tries to change that.

  14. Stupid law, but let us think realpolitick. If it is right that is passed by almost unanimous vote, then does anyone thing the NRA would have stopped it?

    I propose that the few congressman most likely to be against renewing it, voted for it rather than see Schumer’s monstrosity take shape. Or, from the perspective of their careers, imagine if Schumer’s beast became the debated bill. And the GOP blocked it. Then the headlines would be about how they want undetectable guns and hate children. From a realpolitick situation, better this than to have Schumer’s bill even fail.

    Does that make it right? No. But it makes it understandable, and in some sad ways necessary.

      • And if Herr Schumer wants to expand it the Republicans and the NRA can start up the presses. “DEMOCRATS WANT TO BAN YOUR GLOCKS!”

        • Actually more like “DEMOCRATS WANT TO OUTLAW YOUR CHILD’S SUPER SOAKER!!” Cuz that’s a scary undetectable plastic gun in Schumer’s fantasy world.

    • There is no place for realpolitik in a Free Republic. You people have been gulled into submission.

  15. You guys are all acting like this is A-Okay that they just extended the existing law with no modifications. But my question is, can the Senate modify the legislation? Because if they can, then this House extension is irrelevant right now I’d think.

    • The US senate can not change a house bill and then submit it to the pres. for a signature. If changed, it would have to go back to the house for the house to vote on the changes. In other words, both the house and senate versions of any law have to match before going to the pres. It’s one of those checks and balances our founders thankfully thought of back in the day.

      • What it morphs into during conference between the two bodies needs to be shown in bright light of truth. Of course banning firearms and components in common use may get the whole thing thrown out.

  16. Amazing that in the country of Edison there would be a law that expressly forbids progress and ingenuity.
    Well, we’re also the land of making it illegal to pump your own gas (in select special states) so neanderthals can stay employed doing it for you so there’s that.

    • EDISON? Progress? This is the guy who wanted to wire up the entire country with Direct Current, and stole Tesla’s discovery of Alternating Current?

      • Edison did give us the Westinghouse Electric Chair used by the forefathers of today’s SWAT teams.

    • From what I understand of Edison, he would be supportive of a laws to stifle ingenuity — he’d make sure to get an exemption to give him an unfair advantage over his competitors… a crony capitalist, not a free market capitalist.

      • Edison? Invention is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Of my hundreds of lab employees.

        Seriously, he did a great job working the image of the tired genius who only slept 10 minutes at a time, or whatever the line was. As to being nearly as good as he promoted himself to be to be? Not even close.

  17. the stupid party gives in to pressure by the evil party. watch schumer put a bunch a crap in their version, push it through the senate and conference committee. Then deliver that stinking pile back to the house GOP. who will have painted themselves into a no win situation corner again. .

    • And then the bill will die. The House doesn’t have to go along with Senate changes. This is a feel good law that has no effect on anything. Jimmy Hoffa used to talk about his negotiating techniques. He would place some minor item up front and make a fuss about it and then cave. Then he would tell the other side I gave you my number 1 item. What do you got to give me.

  18. This to me is one of the big problems with our government. These people are perfectly willing to perpetuate laws that demonstrably do nothing. Literally nothing. Never did!

    WHY is anyone okay with this!?

    • I’d rather see them waste time on a law that does nothing than spend time on a law that does harm.

      If Congress wants to pass a law banning machines that turn water into dihydrogen monoxide (deadliest chemical on earth, someone dies from it literally every day), I say we should let ’em, and keep notes on how they voted.

  19. a clear violation of the Second Amendment stricture against any and all firearms regulation

    Under the current law (which was extended), it’s legal to manufacture plastic guns as long as they contain some metal, even if the metal is removable. So which part of “keep and bear” is being violated?

      • It infringes your right to buy a plastic gun (of which no reliable models exist yet) without the removable metal piece in it.

        So yes, an infringement but not nearly as terrible as a crapton of others already on the books. If what Ralph wrote is accurate I consider it on par with the pesky laws requiring pistols in my state to be sold with locks.

        Realistically I see two choices here:

        A. They renew the law as is.

        B. Republicans fight renewal and the Democrats claim that obstructionists want terrorists to have guns. They may then get something worse passed if they mount a successful PR campaign. We’re not going to get a fair shake.

        By ensuring the status quo is maintained Republicans get to say they’re reasonable while painting totalitarians like Herr Schumer as radicals who want to ban everyone’s Glocks and squirt guns.

        Herr Schumer and the Democrats are hoping the renewal’s opposed so they can win the rhetoric war and MAYBE get what they really want.

      • I didn’t notice that in the Second Amendment. I noticed that we have the right to keep and bear arms, primarily of a type used by our own military. AFAIK, the 1st Marine Division ain’t running around with plastic guns.

        • Ralph- I didn’t notice the part where it says ‘primarily of a type used by our own military’.

        • The idea that the 2nd A protects firearms of military utility is based on the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Miller.

        • rosignol, The Supremes never truly ruled in Miller, at least before Miller himself was found murdered. It’s a fun read (if you’re into such archane stuff) but the gist of it was that Miller was charged under the NFA for his unregistered sawed-off shottie. The quasi-ruling-opinion was that the 2A protects military weapons that would be used by an organized militia. Seriously.

          Now, had their been an honest prosecutor (yeah right), an informed defense (with money) and Miller not conveniently dead, they would have brought up that actually short-barreled shotties were very common in WWI – thus endeth the case. It was a military weapon and therefore not subject to the NFA and all it’s nonsense.

        • Come on Ralph. Is this what you are saying:

          “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (as long as they have a detectable amount of metal – and are of a type primarily used by the US Military), shall not be infringed.”

          🙂

          I’m waiting for dow chemical to make a new type of material that is strong as steel and all the military weapons are made with this new material. Then, we’ll all wish the “undetectable firearms act” shouldn’t have been passed.

    • I am not really interested in one of these plastic liberators. Nor am I interested in undetectable firearms. – That said, laws similar to this one (although this one has a time limit) can have unintended consequences later. For this reason, I don’t support or condone their passing. Furthermore they are in themselves a solution to a problem that simply doesn’t exist. This legislation is 100% supported by fear. Particularly fear from politicians themselves.

  20. So if the Senate amends this, would it then have to be reconciled with the House version, then the final version go back to the House for a vote, then to the Senate…? (I am unfamiliar with the rules in all this but I remember things like this from when they passed Obamacare).

    • The Senate can’t “amend” a House bill. It can pass it’s own version, and then both versions are sent to a joint Conference Committee for reconciliation. If they can’t be reconciled, neither becomes law.

      I’m hoping that Schumer totally loads up the Senate version, producing irreconcilable versions. But that isn’t likely.

    • Yep, you got it. Both chambers of congress have to agree on any bill before submitting it to the pres.

  23. “The measure passed on an overwhelming bipartisan vote …”

    This reporter is full of bovine excrement. I listened to the VOICE VOTE. First, there were probably a handful of folks on the floor at the time. Second, there was NO WAY 2/3rds of the voice vote was for passage. Don’t believe me? Here is the CSPAN video clip….the debate starts around 1:13 and ENDS at 1:22 with the vote. 10 freaking minutes and it gets extended for another 10 YEARS !!!! RINOs…toss them ALL OUT !!!

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/HouseSessionPart1104

  24. Well, that says it all . For those of you who believe that ANY Republican has your back….HAH! Difference between the two….NOTHING. Except the Republicans hide their intentions. At least Feinstein, Emperor Bloomberg, and their lapdog, O’Blama, are upfront with their contempt for “the people”.

  25. I guess it’s time to start up the argument again…

    The Second Amendment as written doesn’t outlaw any and all regulation of firearms. It says the individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be *infringed.* And it says that the government is to regulate the militia.

    Regulation is not actually synonymous with infringement, despite the Democratic party’s attempt to make it so.

    • The word “regulated” as used at the time the second was written doesn’t mean what it does now.

      “Well regulated” militia meant a militia that was trained and in good order.

      • It still means the same thing in every venue except the hallowed halls of government.

        People regulate watches, engines, and all sorts of machines all the time. There’s just no way to have any sort of organization or machine function properly without some sort of restriction taking place — but the point of regulation is *function*, not simply endless restriction.

        Although if you take the word back to its Latin origin, it would have meant something more along the lines of a king’s decree…but that’s a different story.

    • “And it says that the government is to regulate the militia.”

      Where does it say that? The 2nd Amendment says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” because “a well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”

      There is no mention of the Federal Government instituting regulations over militias.

      • It literally says the government can and should: “A well regulated militia being essential to the security of a free State…” The militia is essential to *the state*. Therefore, the state regulates it.

        (And because there’s no militia if the people aren’t individually armed, the government is ordered not to interfere with the right of people to keep and bear their own individual weapons.)

        • No, the second amendment has no directives for the Federal Government regarding a militia — it states the Federal Government is not to infringe upon the right of an individual to keep and bear arms. That’s it.

      • Then why did the Framers waste those words? They weren’t into padding the Constitution with nonsense. Why mention the state’s interest in the militia if the state can’t touch it?

        • It merely explains the rationale of the amendment. There is no wording in this amendment that gives the Federal Government any power to manage militias.

  26. Can anybody provide an example of a firearm that is in production that would be affected by this?

    I guess you could print out an ABS plastic muzzleloader that fires round plastic shot or something, but even printed guns use metallic cartridges.

    As far as i can tell, this outlaws zero firearms currently in production, or likely to be in production over the course of the next ten years.

    • I wouldn’t be so sure about that. The Kel-Tec P-32 weighs in at only 6.6 ounces. The Undetectable Firearms Act requires a minimum of 3.7 ounces of metal. That requirement is quickly becoming an engineering constraint, especially with the booming business in lightweight, super compact carry pistols. Polymers such as Celazole already outperform some metals in certain respects, and I’m sure firearm manufacturers would love to incorporate more injection molded plastic parts in their designs to increase production speed and lower costs.

    • The law requires firearms to contain enough metal to present a metallic “signature” of 3.6 ounces total. That metal can be the barrel, frame, grip panels, screws, springs, decorations, anything. The metal can be removable, too, and need not be welded or fixed.

  27. Rumor has it Senator Schumer and his civilian disarmament buddies want the law to ban the production of plastic gun parts.

    How would the police know, for instance, how to tell a printed plastic sear for a novel firearm design from a printed plastic throttle linkage for a lawnmower? How would they prove it in court?

    • The police don’t need to “know” anything. They will arrest you based on probable cause and then dozens of lawyers, investigators and scientists will work to prove that the part in question is a gun part.

  31. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
    Wake me up when a real important vote or issue that will change our lives as they now are comes up.
    Heck give them all this one.
    You all running right out to buy a 3D printer any time soon to make a plastic barrel???
    This isn’t the camels nose under the tent or anything to get all riled up about.
    This bans nothing we use or need today or tomorrow.
    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    • You’re OK to violate the Second Amendment? Why not just give them everything they want?

      You’re no different from the NRA halfwits who say, “hell, why do I need the Second Amendment? All I want to be able to do is hunt; they’ll never take that away!”

      YES, they most assuredly WILL.

    • Several of the bills ban plastic magazine bodies, others would regulate metal content in receivers and slides. This is a very slippery slope we are standing on. Schumer, Israel, and a few others have promised to pass expansions of the bill in 2014.

  32. I see so many people complaining about it on the grounds of 2nd amendment freedoms, but honestly who really wants a POS plastic gun that is going to break as soon as you shoot it a couple of times? Would you rather the democrats shove “anything that is related to guns that is plastic is banned” or just deal with the fact they have banned something for 10 years that is not feasible for probably the next 20-30 years unless we have a huge leap in high-strength polymers and plastics. I understand it is an infringement either way, but there is almost no way nowadays politicians are going to back track on gun laws in the near future.

    I will be concerned about this sort of ban when you can reliably print a durable, 100% reliable semi-automatic handgun/rifle completely out of plastic. If I were a terrorist and I wanted to pass a metal detector, I would use the hardened plastic knife, not the liberator or some crap. I would then use the knife to silently get a real gun from a guard/etc.

    • Kyle, Please go do some basic research on the state-of-the-shelf for epoxies, thermopolymers, and other plastics. This stuff isn’t decades away. It is here now, and getting better every day.

  33. While I’d love to see this pointless law be retired, there was a not-insignificant risk that allowing it to lapse would have mean that it would have been reintroduced with various gun-control “enhancements”. Better to maintain the status quo rather than risk something worse, I guess.

    • So, you’ll be opposed to the “worse” ones, right? And you realize this one is “worse” than many that came before, right? Where would you prefer to stop them, when we can, or when we can’t?

      • This isn’t a new law just a rehash of an older one that nothing you personally could do a thing about.
        It will not change your life one way or another as you know it one iota.
        Unless you just happen to own a 3D printing company then every terrorist will be knocking at your back door.

        • I give up; you’re a macro in your world view. You’ll never see the trees for the forest. Me, I’m a micro worldview sort. I know the forest is there, but I’m looking at individual trees.

        • Jay, It may not affect you or your inability to build anything today, or for the rest of your life. But it does affect mine and thousands of others who do things in this realm.

          Some podunk muni requiring a licensed plumber and pulling a permit to do something as braindead as replacing a water heater affects my life. It may not yours, because you can’t do exactly what that plumber does, but it does mine, because I can.

          So please, “it doesn’t affect me” is the biggest cop-out in the world. Have an informed argument or get the eff out of the way.

    • You might be correct for the future. I am seeing it as it is for now.
      Its just an extension of a previous law nothing new is added to this bill.
      It was passed initially on the fear of the Glock when it 1st came out.
      It had no real bite to it then, just as it has none now.
      Its just not a bill to get all worked up on or over in my view.

      • Please go take a few history classes, or read the paper, or something to help you figure out how things actually work IRL…

        Merely renewing this travesty can be twisted to suit all sorts of purposes, and make criminals out of a whole lot of formerly law-abiding citizens. And it guaranteed will be “modified” so that it is even more vague and applicable to any nail that they want to hammer.

  35. Cody Wilson is my hero.

    He should get busy on the next model that is full auto or semi-auto that ejects barrel+casing out the side of the gun when fired and has a magazine full of barrels loaded with cartridges.

    Or alternatively, he could make a plastic shotgun out of a common pipe nipple that one can buy in any hardware store.

    • Your “hero” gave away our position to the enemy. He had added precisely nothing of value the real world, save for a dog-and-pony-self-aggrandizement-world-tour.

        • There was never any talk of 3D printing except on rare science shows and the odd ‘interest’ story on the MSM. Never. People have been doing all sorts of things with firearm parts and less ubiquitous 3D printers for well over a decade. Nary a mention. Anywhere. EVER.

          Why? Because the smarter hobbyists and students knew exactly what would happen when the media hype machine got hold of this, and we knew this before all the Newtown nonsense. Then, all of a sudden there was Cody. Others have long since printed functional plastic guns, but nobody with a lick of sense was going to go on social media and brag about it. Let alone go on an international tour, just to make sure the entire planet can line up against firearms freedom.

          Cody Wilson does his schtick, and within weeks, media and trouble are everywhere. Alarmists screaming about instituting draconian regs and they’re always holding the Liberator. Lawmakers aren’t completely ignorant, there have always been rumblings in the halls of regulation that maybe they should regulate private CNC ownership, but since nobody’s wandering around with a $2K CNC mill and waving around the real metal gun they made, they left CNC alone.

          3D printing of guns and parts is in serious jeopardy. I’m not ever going to welcome a Judas as a hero because he uses some emotional keywords which get some people to rationalize what he’s done.

          • Cody Wilson immediately grasped, unlike you, that this was more of a First Amendment issue than a Second Amendment one, and virtually everything he has said or done has called attention to the First Amendment issues pursuant to printed firearms. I’m obviously not going to change your mind, but I’m fine with that. Some, via their own stances, get left behind.

            This is MUCH MORE than a Second Amendment issue.

        • The only thing Wilson grasped was the publicity, which can be quite intoxicating when you’re a child (sadly over 18), and were never taught to think and understand the consequences of your actions. This is a political strategy issue, and has sweet FA to do with the 1A. Long before this dolt, there were point-clouds circulating of real guns that people with the ability and tools can, and do, make. Wilson provided some pretty pictures of a stinky turd that none of it’s accolytes is ever going to make, except .gov agencies who are going to use it as a prop to take away my right to print gun parts. Everybody in the 3D printing gun world is 5 years past garbage on this level, the only audience he plays to is the ignorati.

          If you’re seeking a real 1A hero, the only one in the last 30 years has been Larry Flynt. This is 100% a 2A issue, the suggestion this is a 1A issue is a desperate maguffin. The knowledge required to make TNT, C4, or a Thermonuclear device has been freely and readily accessible since decades as settled law, but somehow this wanker’s sh1tty design for a pathetic .22 plastic popgun is a novel forwarding of the 1A? Really? How retarded would one have to be to buy that equivocation?

          • You don’t get it, and you’ll never get it. Because you refuse to get it.

            I will not read any further posts or replies from such a nimrod as you.

        • Deny the reality all you want, you have yet to come up with a refutation to any point that I’ve raised, so I’m really not terribly hurt by your dismissal.

        • Ok, So let me get this straight. You are upset because Mr. Wilson is getting publicity and because he burst the bubble on the plastic guns and parts and you think you are suffering because of him. As I stated in my other post to you here:

          http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/robert-farago/breaking-house-extends-undetectable-firearms-act/#comment-1417331

          I did find it funny however, that you are blaming Wilson basically… for undetectable firearms act renewal instead of the politicians and liberals supporting it. It appears you are the one detached from reality. The reality is… His act… on its own, undermines the authority and effectiveness of “gun control.” because any Joe with a 300-500$ kit can print one up and it is almost undetectable. And what do you do?… instead of standing by him and others who seek to completely undermine gun control you blame him for attempting it. Plastic guns will continue to advance and semi-auto versions are only a matter of time. Wilson sought to make gun control legislation ineffective (it is ineffective already) and ensuring everyone’s ability to defend themselves even if all the guns are confiscated. What have I or you done?

          Also – its a .380 not a 22.

          • SERIOUSLY? You somehow managed to read everything I wrote ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DEGREES OPPOSITE of what I actually said.

            I am simply FLOORED. My communication skills are fine. Your comprehension skills need some sort of medical attention.

            Also, SHOW ME WHERE I said it was a .22. Did you have a stroke recently, or what?

      • “He had added precisely nothing of value the real world, save for a dog-and-pony-self-aggrandizement-world-tour.”

        I disagree. He is scaring politicians and they are freaking out of the fact that anyone with a 3d printer and print a gun in plastic that can safely fire a round. This means anyone can print their own self defense – even in countries that have gun bans and lack of “real” guns in circulation. His act… on its own, undermines the authority and effectiveness of “gun control.” There is no gun control when any joe at home and simply print their own. 3D printers will become more mainstream and more common in the years to come. Wilson with this single act has done more than you or I have done.

        • I will NEVER argue with this government troll again. Maybe you shouldn’t either. Your choice, though.

Comments are closed.