House passes plastic gun bill, now Senate has to beat Monday deadline
Source: McClatchy DC
The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill sponsored by Rep. Howard Coble that would add another 10 years to the life of a law that bans guns that can’t be spotted with metal detectors or airport X-ray machines.
The 1988 law bans the kind of plastic weapons that are being made cheaply with 3D printing technology.
The House approved the extension of the law on a voice vote, something usually done when there’s broad bipartisan agreement.
If Congress doesn’t extend the law, it will expire on Monday. That's also the day that the U.S. Senate returns from a two-week Thanksgiving break.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/12/03/210405/houses-passes-plastic-gun-bill.html
MSNBC.com, House quietly bans plastic guns
USA Today, House votes to extend plastic gun ban
Roll call should be up shortly: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/index.asp
Interesting how a Republican majority House actually passed some gun control.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Not one decent bit of real gun legislation instead fear mongering bullshit.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)The current schedule for Monday: http://democrats.senate.gov/2013/12/09/senate-floor-schedule-for-monday-december-9-2013/
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)....weapon they want....no matter how much damage it does to society.
(DU members not included)
arcane1
(38,613 posts)For some reason I thought voice votes were kept secret.
former9thward
(31,941 posts)Just an aye and nay. Whoever in charge that day says whether it passed or not.
I really thought they'd let it go. Can't believe they actually have some sense.
Uben
(7,719 posts)They'd just love to slip something in the bill that wouldn't get caught until it was passed. It's what they do!
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)My recollection when this temporary law was passed. The expiration date was based upon the anticipated future ability to detect gunpowder, other possible propellants and explosive materials. Relegating the need to detect firearms by X-Ray obsolete.
Although maybe we still need the X-Ray to detect a Gauss Rifle?
NickB79
(19,224 posts)The guns getting publicity in the press lately that are made MOSTLY from plastic still utilize metal firing pins to set off the ammo, and metal springs in the magazines to feed the ammo into the chamber. Both of these should compromise more than enough metal to set off a metal detector.
Also, conventional ammunition itself is made of metals that detectors can pick up if set to a high enough sensitivity. A loaded, functional 3D-printed gun shouldn't be able to beat a properly functioning metal detector any more than a standard polymer-gripped Glock would.
Theoretically, it's probably possible to build a gun that could beat the detectors (especially if their sensitivity is set to a low threshold), but that's what multiple layers of security are for.
This isn't a bad bill per se, but it really has no impact on any existing guns anyone would want to legally own. It's not gun control; it's the illusion of gun control. That's the only reason the House actually passed it, because it looks good to the masses.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The problem is when this law was written in the 1980s, the concern was as you write, i.e. people could buy a plastic gun and sneak it pass a metal detector.
That problem, in theory, still exists, but the real concern today reflects how the relatively new 3d plastic printers work. These printers are more in the nature of a molding machine, but whose molds are set by computer programs as opposed to someone actually making the molds. These machines are also getting cheaper as more and more people buy them to produce odds parts, for it is cheaper to buy one of these machines then to order those parts if and when you need the part.
These machines are design that all you need is a computer program for a part, and it will make that part. The Part can be for a car, a sewing machine, a home project to school or a gun. All you need is the 3d printer (more a molding machine then a printer), the plastic for the printer and a program to set the printer to make the part. Thus technically you can order the specs for a weapon and have the 3d printer mode every part for the weapon.
The problem with these all plastic gun is the plastic they are made out of, most is normal plastic, not designed to take the pressure of a round going off inside the plastic. Thus you might get one round off, as that round explodes in your hands, but in theory it would work.
Non metallic guns are NOT new, for example the original AR-10 of the 1950s, did not only have plastic stock and grips (and an Aluminum Trigger housing) it also had a Fiberglass Barrel. The Ar-10 with the Fiberglass Barrel, was tested by the Springfield Armory in the mid 1950s, who quickly discovered the Barrel could NOT take the punishment of rounds going off in the chamber, thus they design a new Steel Barrel for the AR-10, that was carried over to the AR-15 and into the M-16 (The Army told the Armory to stop advising Stoner on the AR-10 right after they did the research on the Barrel, and thus the M-16 had other problems that the Anomaly would have detected had it been left to work on the AR-10, the Springfield Armory were the experts on small arms in the US at that time period).
Even today, Steel is still the preferred material for barrels, nothing else comes close to Steel when it comes to taking the Stress of a round going off inside a barrel (and even then most barrels have to be replaced after firing 25,000 rounds, which in today's army not that much, 100 round per day, five days a week 50 weeks a year comes to 25,000 (There are 52 weeks in a year).
I bring this up, for the same computer driven molding machines which we call 3d did printers, uses the same programs as modern computer driven steel barrel making machines. Thus you no longer need access to a skill machinist to make a barrel, all you need is a machine with a computer that can be adjusted to make the barrels as required. The same with triggers and other parts of a Gun.
At the same time, these same computer driven machines are what is pushing most manufacturing today. Thus you have more and more machines capable of making parts for weapons. These not only include so call 3d printers, but machine to cut steel and other parts.
We are entering an age where everyone can produce anything as long as they have access to the needed raw material. In the case of 3d printers, plastic. In the case of steel stamping tools, Steel of the quality needed (and most steel made today meets these requirements). The real restriction is when the material needed is of a higher then normal nature (the Steel in a Barrel for example).
Had the Titanic been made out of "High Tension" steel, instead of the crap steel it was made out of, it would NOT have sunk. "High Tension" steel was the wonder material of the 1880s, and thus common by 1912 when the Titanic was built (It was during a Coal Strike in England, and thus cheap steel was used for the better steels were in short supply do to the Coal Strike). Chrome Molybdenum steel was the wonder material of the 1930s, it produced an even more rigid frame, the more rigid a frame in a bicycle the easier the bike is to peddle (most gun barrels used a Chrome Molydbenum steel starting in the late 1800s, most made the switch as nations went from black powder to more powerful smokeless powder starting in the 1880s).
When the 1903 Springfield was first produced, Springfield Armory used a visual test to determined if the action was of the proper strength. No problems for many years, till the US Army started to issue rounds with more Copper in the "Brass" then had been normal. These new cheaper rounds caused pressure on the action to increase and these actions started to fail. Springfield quickly found out why and adopted actual temperature reading instead of a visual test to make sure the action was strong enough to take the pressure of a normal round (And the Military switched back to Brass, the Marines first, the Army did not fully do so till the 1930s, in both services as the switch occurred the problem with these early Springfield stopped).
I bring this up for the main area of concern for weapons is the chamber and the bolt closing the chamber. The rest of the gun can be made up of cheap steel, or even plastic, but these two pieces MUST be strong enough to take the pressure of that round going off. These parts can be made in a 3d Printer, or a computer driver Steel Stamping machine. The real issue is NOT that they can be made, but how strong will the resulting part be? Some of this depends on the design of the weapon.
In the AK (Ak-47, AK-74 etc) and AR (AR-10, AR-15, M-16 and M4 Carbine) series of weapons, both use a rotating bolt head to seal the chamber. Typically when you see the same method on two different weapons, one stole the concept from the other. In this case both sides were working in secret, independent of each other, during WWII on two different Continents, but came up with the same concept to seal the bolt. Other then both system use a rotating bolt head, how the bolt rotates clearly shows they are two different designs. The big plus side of such a design is the rest of the bolt can be made up of weak material.
The Mauser series of Bolt Action rifles uses a single slot to lock the bolt. It is almost as good as the AK and AR systems. The bolt in a Mauser system has to be stronger then in an AK or an AN, for the bolt only locks on the bottom, but just strong enough to make that slot hold. In comparison the bolt on the British SMLE series of Rifles lock in the rear of the bolt, thus the bolt transfers the power of the round to the lock via the bolt. This requires a very well built and strong (and Heavy) bolt. The advantages of the SMLE was you did not have to operate the bolt the length of the round AND the locking mechanism (as you do with the AK, AN or Mauser actions), just the length of the next round of ammunition. This permitted greater fire power (the SMLE could do 20 rounds per minute, the Mauser, including the Springfield could only do 14 rounds per minute).
I bring all of this up, to show that the restriction in weapons making in the coming future will NOT be making any part of a weapon other then its barrel and bolt. Everything else can be done cheaply with standard steel parts or plastic parts. The real issue is those parts of a weapon that MUST be of high quality why above normal for most items in most weapons that is only needed in the chamber of the Barrel AND the bolt that closes that chamber. Modern Computer stamping machines AND Molding Machines can make the rest of the parts, maybe NOT up to what you can buy from a factory, but good enough for most terrorists use.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Where's Crapinthepants Nugent on this clear violation of his 2A rights?
Never trust a Republican to do the right thing. Something's up.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)The NRA and their ilk don't care because there's no such thing as a fully functional all plastic gun*. They might as well ban unicorn pit fighting. But banning the plastic ones makes them seem reasonable and moderate (At least to people that don't pay attention) so they can continue to fight on against regulation on the ones that do exist.
*People regularly claim to have made one, then it turns out there's an "Almost all plastic" buried halfway through the claim.
quakerboy
(13,917 posts)If a gun can kill dozens in a public area, that's not a problem.
If a gun might be snuck past security to kill one "important" person... well, that's a whole different matter to the "important" people.
mwooldri
(10,301 posts)The right to bear arms... what is the NRA's position on this? We can't ban assault weapons but we can ban plastic guns??
I demand to keep my 2nd Amendment Right to have and hold a gun made completely of plastic components! A summer without a few Super Soaker water guns.... well... it's not summer!
happyslug
(14,779 posts)If you read his Majority opinion as to bans on pistols (Which are involved in 69% of all homicides, and 95% of all homicides that involve a firearm), he ignores the the concept of the Militia, for to address it would have forced him to address the issue of WHY the right to bare arms is tied in with the Militia, a concept the Majority and the Dissent both decided to avoid).
Please note less then 5% of ALL Homicides involves the use of Rifles or Shotguns, this includes victims of Assault Rifles. The rate is very low, lower then the rate of homicides by Knives, Fists, or "Blunt Instruments", you have more people killed by knives, Blunt instruments and fists, legs etc, then you have people killed by Rifles or Shotguns (and if you exclude "Blunt Instruments" Rifles AND shotgun deaths are 1/3 of the number of people killed by Knives AND more people were killed by being hit by a hand, fist, leg then were killed by Rifles AND Shotguns (Including Assault Rifles).
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf
In 2012, 6371 people were killed by Pistols, 322 by Rifles (including Assault Rifles), 303 by Shotguns, 110 by "Other guns" with an additional 1749 where the type of gun was not stated (almost all were pistols, when it is something else it is an exception and thus written down).
In the same year, 1589 people where knifed to death, 518 were hit by a "Blunt Instrument" and 678 were killed by hands, fists or other part of the body.
Thus the problem is Pistols NOT Assault Rifles and it is the later that is protected by the Second Amendment NOT the former as found by Scalia.
The Militia of the Colonial period included every able bodied male between 18 and 45 (and those women selected to be "Washer Women" as that term was used in the formation of military units, one washer woman to every 20 men, which was also a platoon of that time period. Each Platoon thus had 19 men, one Sargent and one Washer woman, who generally was the wife of the Platoon Sargent). This staffing had been the norm since we have written records of military operations that mention actual platoons (i.e, during the Crusades), and by that time it was already known as a long time practice (so long that after every battle, both sides would meet to exchange prisoners, the exchange of washer woman had by the Crusades been the first things both sides discuss when it came to exchange of prisoners).
Anyway, Scalia avoided the issue of the Militia for if he had addressed it, he would have to had address the various section in the Constitution that also address the Militia, including that Congress was reserved the right to form up the Militia. Scalia also could avoid the 1792 and 1795 Militia Acts, where Congress (many of whom had written the Constitution AND/OR the Bill of Rights) for those Militia Act clearly set forth what the Congress that passed the Bill of Rights thought should be the weapons of the militia.
In the Militia Acts, Congress said every man shall have a .69 caliber smooth bore musket (the Standard infantry weapon of the time period), with 20 rounds of ammunition. Today's equivalent would be a M16 with 600 rounds of Ammunition. Congress also said said militia man had to have tenting and equipment for use in the field (i.e. tent, bag to haul things one need, an blanket etc).
Pistols were only addressed in the section dealing with Cavalry, and then only while horse mounted.
In simple terms, if we go by HOW the Congress that passed the Bill of Rights AND the First Militia Act (the same Congress did BOTH), Congress (and the states) can ban any weapon NOT needed for Militia use as infantry (i.e. can ban pistols) but can NOT ban Assault Rifles. In my opinion Scalia left open the right of Congress and the States to ban Assault Rifles, while saying that Congress and the States can NOT ban pistols (The dissent concentrated on the right of Congress and the States to Ban pistols and like Scalia avoided the Militia Acts for they, like Scalia, wanted to permit Congress to be able to ban Assault rifles along with pistols.
In Discussions, Scalia has said that the Ban on Automatic Weapons may be permitted under his ruling on the Second Amendment. That is not surprising, Scalia cares less of people killing each other (which is what most pistols are used for) but has a concern if a revolt breaks out (Where RIFLES not pistols are important). Scalia wants the Government to have sole control of force, even if such force is used to do harm to the people of the United States.
Thus Scalia is more then willing to ban any weapon capable of actual military use (i.e. Rifles and Shotguns), but actually care less of weapons of little use in such situations (i.e. Pistols).
In the West Virginia Coal War, the weapon of choice of the miners on Strike was rifles not pistols, the same in the various other Coal Strikes of the late 1800s to the 1930s (the Coal and Iron Police and similar Anti-Union things preferred pistols for with pistols they could murder strikers with ease).
My favorite story is the 1928 Broughton School Shooting in then Snow den Township (now South Park Township) of Allegheny County Pa (Country Seat Pittsburgh PA). The various mines in Western Pennsylvania went on Strike. In every school, except Broughton, in the Coal mining areas of Western Pennsylvania, if your parents were on strike, you could NOT go to school. In Broughton, the miners held the School, and thus permitted the children and Strikers and non strikers to go to School. To counter this the Coal Companies brought in Strike Breakers. Since this was 1928 and they could no longer import immigrants, they opt for African Americans. The Coal companies went south and told African Americans of good pay they could get if they agree to mine coal for the Companies, they neglected to tell the African Americans of the Strike. Once at the mine, the African Americans were told they had to pay back the cost of transporting them from they home to the mine, and to do so they had to work the mine. In many ways this lead to anti-African American attitude among many miners (and last to this day). The Coal and Iron Police then gave the African American Pistols to defend themselves as they walked past the Union hall and the School, both with striking miners in them.
Now, the School was in a valley. In front of the school as a very small playground (about 20 feet wide), the dirt (now paver) road read (About 20 feet wide), Gill Run (About 20 feet wide) and then another 30 feet to the railroad tracks. Then up another steep hill, which today is forested, but then covered with scrub. About 90-100 feet between the School and the Tracks. The African Americans walked down the tracks not the road to go from where they were living to the mine. 90-100 feet (about 30 yards) is the outside effective range of pistols if you have training with pistols (These African Americans were given none). The African Americans walked along the tracks and as they were passing the school, something happened.
The miners in the School said they came under fire, and returned that fire. The African Americans also claim they came under fire and only returned fire. The Miners in the School were armed with rifles and 100 feet, 30 yards was while within the range of their rifles, while outside the max effective range of the African American Pistols. From what I can determine the Students also report gun fire BEFORE the miners opened fire. Thus the overwhelming evidence is the miners did NOT fire first.
On the other hand I do not see the African Americans firing first either, but was the ruling of the officials investigation the case (Then the case drives up, no further reports, like the whole thing was dropped). I suspect that the Coal and Iron Police (what some people have called the single most effective Criminal terrorist group in American History) had set up the African Americans to take the fall. The Coal and Iron Police gave them pistols, not rifles. Rifles not only have longer effective range, but you need less training to use rifles effectively compared to pistols. Worse, pistols are short range weapon, the distances fired was at the maximum effective range of pistols if fired by someone with training. Thus the Coal and Iron police arming the African Americans with pistols make no sense, unless you believe they were being set up.
What I see happening is the Coal and Iron Police arming the African Americans and then sending them to walk right by the Striking miners. I suspect the Coal And Iron Police wanted the African Americans to walk on or along the road NOT the rail road tracks. If the African Americans had walked on the road, they would have been within range of their pistols, and having no cover to hide under easy target (and dead Strike breaker was a head line back then). Instead the African Americans walked on the Tracks, which provided them cover when they came under fire by diving behind the track embankment.
Now, if the African American had been on the road they could have dived into Gill Run, it would have given then cover from anyone on the ground, but the school as close enough and tall enough for people with rifles to fire down into Gill Run, thus easy targets. The railroad tracks on the other side of Gill Run from the School was at the same height as the roof of the School, thus the African Americans were saved by walking on the tracks, for the track embankment gave them cover.
The above explains the lack of dead African Americans, but who opened fire? I suspect the Coal and Iron Police. The night before all they had to do is position themselves further up the hill from the tracks and wait for the African Americans to walk by. As the African Americans walked by, open fire on the school. The African Americans had been told of threats from the School, so when they shots were heard, they assumed it was from the school (it is hard to pin point where a shot is fired from by sound, if you are looking AWAY from where the sound is coming from). The miners in the school knew they had come under fire and seeing the African Americans pull put their pistols (do to hearing the firing of guns) opened fire on the African Americans, who promptly jumped for cover behind the Track embankment.
The Miners expected problems (the Coal and Iron Police were know for provocations) thus made sure they themselves and the Students in the School were behind some sort of cover. Thus none of them were hit. They "Returned" fire in the direction of the African Americans, but upon hearing the firing, the African Americans had jumped behind the track embankment and thus had cover from the gun fire from the School. The Coal and Iron Police stayed under cover and probably then crawled away thus avoiding being discovered by either side. The African Americans later complained that the Coal And Iron Police did not come to their aid till the gun fire was long finished (Probably because the Coal and Iron Police Officers had not crawled back from they position where they had opened fire on the strikers).
Charges were filed, but later dropped against the African Americans. The State Police wanted to charge the Miners but the Local Justice of the Peace kept on ruling that the Miners were only defending themselves. There are reports that the African Americans had been paid $25 each to shoot up the school.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=djft3U1LymYC&dat=19280203&printsec=frontpage&hl=en
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,731535-2,00.html
Gifford Pinchot used this exchange of fire in his campaign for Governorship of Pennsylvania (he would win in November 1930 and would abolish the Coal and Iron Police) The Old School was torn down by 1929 and a new School up the hill and behind the old school was built (and the side facing the Railroad was built like a Fortress given the number of gun fire hits the old school actually took).
I bring up the Broughton School Shooting for it brings up the differences between pistols and rifles. Pistols are NOT designed for use by people in a true conflict. When gun fire breaks out the preference is rifles for shotguns. Pistols are used by people who want to hide the fact they have guns (or in the case of the African American in Broughton, to give false confidence to people with such weapons). As such pistols have very limited military usability (yes, the Army issues pistols, but to people who otherwise would be unarmed do to having to operate another piece of equipment with his or her hands. The Classic case is the cavalry, pistols where issued to provide them fire power they can produce while riding a horse, if dismounted, muskets were preferred even by Cavalrymen. When I was in the Survive I was the designated Driver of my APC, as such I was issued a pistol for my job was to DRIVE not to fire a rifle. The same rule goes to most people who are issued pistols in the army forces, it is to provide them some fire power while keeping both arms free to do other functions).
I fear Scalia is more then willing to rule against the right to own an assault rifle, on the ground that such ownership does NOT equal membership in the Reserve Militia (Which by Federal Law all Males between the ages of 18 and 45 are members of, another law Scalia is willing to ignore). While Scalia is willing to extend the Second amendments to pistols (on the grounds of the right to Self Defense) he is NOT willing to extend that right to Automatic Weapons on the grounds such weapons are the best weapon for members of the Reserve militia to possess. Scalia is ready willing and will vote to preserve the ban on Automatic Weapons on the grounds the militia is what Congress (or the States) says it is, and if Congress (and the States), wants the Militia to be unarmed, Scalia will support that decision.
hack89
(39,171 posts)There are several states that do it. It is a political issue, not a legal one.
aikoaiko
(34,163 posts)There are no completely plastic guns with plastic ammo.
Even if there were, the laws covering conventional firearms would also cover them.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Time for gunhadists to start their own party.
The GOP just threw the Second Amendment under the bus.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Senate vote to renew an expiring ban on plastic firearms capable of evading metal detectors and X-ray machines is shaping up as a bittersweet moment for gun control supporters, days before the anniversary of the deadly mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.
Monday's vote to extend the prohibition on plastic guns for another decade responds to a growing threat from steadily improving 3-D printers that can produce such weapons. But gun control advocates seem sure to lose an effort to impose additional, tougher restrictions on plastic firearms - a harsh reminder of their failure to enact any new federal gun curbs in the year since 20 first-graders and six educators were murdered in Newtown, Conn.
The slayings last Dec. 14 prompted the newly re-elected President Barack Obama to push gun control to the top of his domestic agenda. But Congress approved nothing, and gun control advocates face the same uphill struggle in 2014, complicated by internal divisions over what their next step should be.
"The gun lobby still has enormous power in Washington - more, frankly, than I thought they still had," said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., who represented Newtown last year while in the House.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_PLASTIC_GUNS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-12-09-03-07-45