All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Wednesday, August 01, 2018

3D printer guns were banned 30 years ago

In 1988, Alyssa Milano was in her heyday on "Who's the Boss?" Ronald Reagan was president. The National Rifle Association lobbied for the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. Regan signed it into law on November 10, two days after his vice president was elected to Reagan's third term.

Years have passed. Plastic guns are on the horizon. Reagan's gone. And Milano has gone from a 15-year-old ingenue to a 45-year-old activist who cannot grasp basic facts.

Milano and the rest of the Marxists in America are demanding that President Trump ban plastic guns.

She wrote a piece for CNN, "Alyssa Milano: A 3D printed gun is downloadable death."

She said the guns would be undetectable.

They also would be illegal. Reagan already signed the act into law. It is still the law.

The NRA still backs the law as well.

"Many anti-gun politicians and members of the media have wrongly claimed that 3-D printing technology will allow for the production and widespread proliferation of undetectable plastic firearms. Regardless of what a person may be able to publish on the Internet, undetectable plastic guns have been illegal for 30 years. Federal law passed in 1988, crafted with the NRA’s support, makes it unlawful to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive an undetectable firearm," Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, said.

The interesting thing about the law is it anticipated 3D printers when there were none.

###

Please enjoy my books in paperback and on Kindle.

Trump the Press covers the nomination.

Trump the Establishment covers the election.

Fake News Follies of 2017 covers his first year as president.

For autographed copies, write me at DonSurber@gmail.com

14 comments:

  1. The plans are simple information. That cannot be banned. If the info is able to be banned, I see no reason why we can't ban pornography.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Similarly, patent documents for firearms contain the “plans” for Making them. Converting the plans into actual product is not easy.

      Criminals will continue to get their firearms the old fashioned way - by stealing them.

      Also, if the gun I undetectable, won’t the bullets still be? I wouldn’t think a plastic casing would survive the explosion when the gun is fired.

      Delete
    2. It was reported today that a Federal judge issued an injunction against Defense Distributed to prevent them from putting their 3-d printer gun code on line.

      Delete
    3. If the info is able to be banned, I see no reason why we can't ban pornography.

      Because Thurgood Marshall was a perv.

      Delete
    4. A "printed" gun still contains metal parts (required by law). Also, most of these guns are single shot, so carry only 1 bullet in the gun. Unfortunately, because may airport metal detectors have to be able to recognize zippers, et al., they will not detect the single bullet, but because of the other metal required, it will likely be caught.

      Besides, many airports no longer use metal detectors but use other methods for searching which would likely catch these guns as well, especially those that sniff for explosives (i.e. bullets).

      Delete
  2. Undetectable is a lie. No functional barrel, chamber, firing pin, or clockwork could be fabricated from 3D-printed polymers available today.

    Here is about as close as I could find to the truth in the mainstream press:
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22604405/3d-printed-guns/

    This all stems from the fed gov's defining a firearm as its receiver. If they hadn't illegally infringed on what "shall not be infringed" in the first place, we wouldn't be having this national debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Big D, this post is yet another stick in the eye for the LibCommies. The last line is a superb killshot. Well done.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry--that should be "lockwork" instead of "clockwork."

    I also meant to say, "dance on the head of a firing pin."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Although I'm a Patron Member of the NRA, I wince when I see the NRA being praised for this kind of law. It adds vigor to the accusation by many that the NRA is squishy, and exists more to take people's money than to fight for the right our 2nd Amendment guarantees.

    The NRA also lobbied for the 1934 National Firearms Act and then the 1938 Federal Firearms Act; I continue to think both these Acts are unConstitutional. The NRA's President in those days didn't like people carrying weapons and thought everyone should have to have a license for their guns, a view very popular on the Left since it makes it easier to ban weapons later on (see California where that's been done.)

    The NRA also supported the 1968 GCA that Ronald Reagan signed into law, one of the most shameful acts of his presidency IMHO.

    So the NRA isn't as devoted to the 2nd Amendment as I and many others would like, and have a distressing tendency to fold when the going gets tough; but they're still the most powerful gun rights group, and I keep hoping that they've learned better since those days.

    "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." --A.E.van Vogt

    "An armed society is a polite society." --R.A. Heinlein

    ReplyDelete
  6. This has nothing to do with "plastic guns," and the 21 attorneys general involved in the lawsuit know that. It also has nothing to do with the export of critical technology to foreign powers. Even if it did, why does that raise a STATE issue that allows them to interfere with a legal settlement reached between the federal Dept of State and Defense Distributed? The judge in the case should should have ruled the states lack standing and dismissed their claims.

    What is it all about? It's all about Leftist attempts at gun control and gun confiscation. It is legal for anyone to build his own gun from scratch. It is also perfectly legal for Defense Distributed to openly offer its CAD plans to anyone within the US. If it wanted to, it could stand on a street corner anywhere in the US, including within the 21 states that are suing, and legally hand out the CAD plans in paper form. And the state AGs could do nothing about it.

    Defense Distributed is not taking this attempted suppression of its First and Second Amendment rights lightly. It has now filed a countersuit against the 21 states AGs for civil rights violations and tortious interference with its business. Good for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I should also have added that the lawsuit against the Trump administration is less about guns than about harassing the Trump administration at every step of the way. The rabidly anti-Trump Washington state AG who is leading the charge spends most of his time these days filing lawsuit after lawsuit against the Trump administration than on state legal matters.

      Delete
    2. And that is the problem that needs to be corrected,what legal right do ATG and state judges have to stop anything in national context.And by the way I have the plastic gun plans ,I got in 2012.You have to install metal barrels,pins,etc to make it work.They are single shot and do not last beyond about five shots.Thanh of course we have the cost of the 3D printer.

      Delete
  7. Not to disagree, but wasn't it concealable weapons that could get through metal detectors that were banned?

    ReplyDelete
  8. When Glocks came out ,that was the big argument,as they are all polymer.

    ReplyDelete