1911Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

30 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Rep. Sensenbrenner Rams Gun Ban Through on Voice Vote
-- Time to ask your Senators to oppose the same ban

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408

Wednesday, November 5, 2003

The gun grabbers know what this fight is all about... it's about
"incrementalism." It's about steadily advancing their illicit
cause, even when support for gun control has little popular appeal
outside of Congress.

Consider the statement of one prominent Democrat on the House floor

"In the wake of the September 11 attacks, we need to do much more to
prevent dangerous firearms from falling into the hands of would-be
terrorists and other violent criminals," said Rep. Bobby Scott
(D-VA) when speaking in favor of the ban that passed the House this

"We could start by renewing the current assault weapons ban. We
could also strengthen criminal background checks and close the gun
show loophole," Scott said. "Finally, we need to protect us from
[plastic guns]. The bill before us today achieves the last of these

In other words: "We want much more, but today, we'll settle for a
ban on a gun that doesn't even exist."

Scott wants to ban these guns, before they are ever invented, to
keep bad guys from getting them. The fallacy of his argument is in
thinking that ANY gun ban will stop terrorists and violent criminals
from getting the outlawed weapons. No gun ban on the face of the
earth has done that yet.

Not in the nation's capital -- nor in Chicago, Los Angeles or even
England -- have gun bans worked to keep bad guys from getting

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) authored this bill to extend the
prohibition on plastic firearms. The current ban is scheduled to
sunset in December.

The Wisconsin Congressman brought it directly to the floor of the
House, having skipped the committee process, after successfully
urging the House leadership to allow the rules of the House to be

Speaking in favor of the ban, Sensenbrenner praised the Bush Justice
Department for supporting the bill. In opposition, Gun Owners of
America was the only national gun lobby to fight the ban.

Sensenbrenner managed to get H.R. 3348 passed on a voice vote,
meaning that fewer than 30 Representatives -- those who happened to
be on the floor at the time -- were all that it took to extend the
ban on these firearms.

In one sense, the ban is meaningless since a completely plastic gun
has yet to be invented. It would be like banning Star Trek phaser
rifles. The technology is not even there. And no gun manufacturer
is even close to developing an all-plastic gun in the near future.

In another sense, however, the ban continues to extend the
illegitimate reach of Congress into the realm of firearms -- a
precedent which will be used by gun grabbers in the future to
justify more bans.

The fight now shifts to the Senate, where Senator Ted Kennedy is
expected to push his version of the bill very soon.

Unlike the House bill, which simply extends the ban for 10 more
years, S. 1774 would make the ban permanent.

ACTION: Please urge your Senator to oppose S. 1774, and to
instead support REAL efforts aimed at stopping terrorists -- such as
arming the rest of the pilots who want to carry guns.

Please visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send the pre-written
message below to your Senators.

------ Pre-written message -----

Dear Senator:

I urge you to vote against S. 1774, a bill authored by Senator Ted
Kennedy (D-MA). This bill is unconstitutional, and it is a useless
waste of taxpayers' money and of your time. Plus, the gun it
purports to ban doesn't even exist!

If a totally plastic gun is ever developed, a ban will not keep bad
guys from getting their hands on such a firearm any more than the
other 20,000 or so gun laws keep murderers and thieves from getting
their hands on guns now.

You have much more important things to do. Please, instead of
wasting your time banning a gun that does not exist, force the
Transportation Safety Administration to arm pilots.

Gun Owners of America will inform me how you vote. Please vote
against S. 1774.



Mitch HanK Sauer

"Better to have one and not need it, than to need one and not have it."

4,304 Posts
Does the bill specify a firearm made "100%" of plastic? The law refers to a firearm under particular definitions. But, the accountable portion of a firearm is the receiver or frame - not the other miscellaneous parts. What if a pistol has a "plastic" frame and slide carrier with a ceramic breech block and barrel, and a few small metal parts?

This is not that farfetched from some of the designs under developement at this time. And there are other composites other than plastic which may fall under a general definition of "synthetics".

Having a general aversion to plastics, I would not really be bothered too much about this one. Except that it is the principle at stake, and the idea that the federal government can "outlaw" any type of firearm is an afront to our Constitution.

So ... why would the feds want to be exclusive users of non-ferrous firearms I wonder?

11,101 Posts
Will cartridges not set off metal detectors by themselves? I honestly have no idea. Im sure bomb and drug dogs can be trained to smell them.

Of course you only have to ask yourself if a suicide attacker cares that his plastic gun is illegal to realize how idiotic this law is.

The people trying to sneak a plastic gun on a plane certainly arent the type to be deterred by a law. And on top of that how are you going to get through a hardened cockpit door with a plastic gun?

How many shots do you think you could fire from a typical plastic gun before the nearest handful of angry Americans dogpile you and beat you to death?

172 Posts
I just sent an email to Sensenbrenner.. I'm 'lucky' enough to have him as my representative.. I'll share his reply as soon as I get it

172 Posts
just flipping back through these topics and realized I never got a reply from my congressman when I asked him to explain his reasoning for this

apparently he doesn't feel he works for me.. I'll remember that next time I'm voting.. it's very likely he WON'T work for me in the future
1 - 5 of 5 Posts