FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Battle Over Invisible Guns

by CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

It was exciting-the news about banning invisible guns.  Of course they are only invisible when they’re going through machines meant to detect them.  They are not invisible if they are used to shoot people.  But what made it especially exciting was that the news came just as we all thought Congress was not going to do anything between now and the end of the year.  It was probably silly of us to think that since everyone knows people in Congress were elected to do something even though the folks elected sometimes have trouble deciding what it is.

Thus it was that no sooner did the Senate get back to Washington after its Thanksgiving vacation, with citizens hoping it would do something constructive during the last few days it was in Washington, than it became known that it intended to take advantage of procedural rules in order to postpone the inevitable. Republican senators acted to slow down the approval of 76 nominations made by the president. Because of the change in the senate procedural rules that eliminate the filibuster the nominees are guaranteed eventual approval.  By stalling the approval Republican senators give the impression that they are being busy even though all they are in fact doing is delaying the inevitable.  They were not, however, completely inactive.  They extended one significant piece of legislation. It pertained to guns.

As followers of such things know, everyone with a computer and a half way decent 3_D printer can make a perfectly useable gun.  The gun can be made entirely out of plastic thus enabling its owner to go around carrying the owner’s 2d amendment friend without fear of detection, secure in the knowledge that no matter what problems are encountered, the invisible friend will help its owner ward off evil.

To prove that they were not incapable of taking any significant action, the Senate followed the lead of the House and extended for 10 years the Undetectable Firearms Act that was passed in 1988 as a very small part of 18 USC Sec. 922.  The Act banned the sale or possession of firearms that, to use layman’s terms, do not look like guns, and, in addition, do not contain enough metal to be detectable by walk through metal detectors or x-ray machines used at airports.  (How much metal is required is established by something called a “security exemplar” that the statute says will be fabricated at the direction of the Attorney General and “constructed of . . . 3.7 ounces of material type 17-4 PH stainless steel in a shape resembling a handgun.”)

Some readers are probably wondering how such a draconian piece of legislation could be enacted in the face of what must surely have been opposition from the NRA.  The answer is that there was no opposition to the extension of the act by the NRA. That’s because the Act says it is OK to make an invisible gun so long as the manufacturer includes as part of the invisible gun, a metal strip so that it is not invisible if it goes through an ex-ray machine or a metal detector with the metal strip attached.  What the law doesn’t prohibit, however, is designing the gun so the metal strip can be removed when the gun goes through a metal detector.  By removing the metal strip the gun is once again invisible.  (Going so easily from visible to invisible is the sort of thing that would have appealed to people who wrote fairy tales many years ago.)

Senator Charles Schumer doesn’t like for people to walk around carrying lethal weapons that no one can see and nothing can detect.  For that reason he wanted the act to require that 3-D printed guns include metal components that could not be removed.  His thinking was that if the metal could not be removed then the gun would no longer be invisible.  The Senator could not persuade his colleagues and that provision was not included in the extension of the Act.

In a statement before Senator Schumer’s amendment was voted on the NRA said:  “We would like to make our position clear.  The NRA strongly opposes ANY expansion of the Undetectable Firearms Act . . .. The NRA has been working for months to thwart expansion of the UFA by Senator Chuck Schumer and others.”  The NRA’s opposition to making invisible guns visible finds support in the 2d Amendment to the United States Constitution as understood by enough members of the U.S. Supreme Court to make their understanding the law of the land.  There is nothing in that amendment that suggests that citizens should not be permitted to arm themselves with invisible guns. Of course if someone were to shoot down an airplane with an invisible gun, one can be fairly confident Congress would reexamine the question to show how seriously it takes tragedies like the Newtown School shooting or our hypothetical downing of an airplane.  It would not, of course, make any changes to the law.  That’s because of the NRA and the 2d Amendment, the one misguided and the other misunderstood.

CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI is a lawyer in Boulder, Colorado. He can be e-mailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu.

 

More articles by:
July 25, 2016
Sharmini Peries - Michael Hudson
As the Election Turns: Trump the Anti-Neocon, Hillary the New Darling of the Neocons
Ted Rall
Hillary’s Strategy: Snub Liberal Democrats, Move Right to Nab Anti-Trump Republicans
William K. Black
Doubling Down on Wall Street: Hillary and Tim Kaine
Quincy Saul
Resurgent Mexico
Andy Thayer
Letter to a Bernie Activist
Patrick Cockburn
Erdogan is Strengthened by the Failed Coup, But Turkey is the Loser
Robert Fisk
The Hypocrisies of Terror Talk
Lee Hall
Purloined Platitudes and Bipartisan Bunk: An Adjunct’s View
Binoy Kampmark
The Futility of Collective Punishment: Russia, Doping and WADA
Nozomi Hayase
Cryptography as Democratic Weapon Against Demagoguery
Cesar Chelala
The Real Donald Trump
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Propaganda Machinery and State Surveillance of Muslim Children
Denis Conroy
Australia: Election Time Blues for Clones
Marjorie Cohn
Killing With Robots Increases Militarization of Police
David Swanson
RNC War Party, DNC War Makers
Eugene Schulman
The US Role in the Israeli-Palestine Conflict
Nauman Sadiq
Imran Khan’s Faustian Bargain
Peter Breschard
Kaine the Weepy Executioner
Weekend Edition
July 22, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Good as Goldman: Hillary and Wall Street
Joseph E. Lowndes
From Silent Majority to White-Hot Rage: Observations from Cleveland
Paul Street
Political Correctness: Handle with Care
Richard Moser
Actions Express Priorities: 40 Years of Failed Lesser Evil Voting
Eric Draitser
Hillary and Tim Kaine: a Match Made on Wall Street
Conn Hallinan
The Big Boom: Nukes And NATO
Ron Jacobs
Exacerbate the Split in the Ruling Class
Jill Stein
After US Airstrikes Kill 73 in Syria, It’s Time to End Military Assaults that Breed Terrorism
Jack Rasmus
Trump, Trade and Working Class Discontent
John Feffer
Could a Military Coup Happen Here?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Late Night, Wine-Soaked Thoughts on Trump’s Jeremiad
Andrew Levine
Vice Presidents: What Are They Good For?
Michael Lukas
Law, Order, and the Disciplining of Black Bodies at the Republican National Convention
David Swanson
Top 10 Reasons Why It’s Just Fine for U.S. to Blow Up Children
Victor Grossman
Horror News, This Time From Munich
Margaret Kimberley
Gavin Long’s Last Words
Mark Weisbrot
Confidence and the Degradation of Brazil
Brian Cloughley
Boris Johnson: Britain’s Lying Buffoon
Lawrence Reichard
A Global Crossroad
Kevin Schwartz
Beyond 28 Pages: Saudi Arabia and the West
Charles Pierson
The Courage of Kalyn Chapman James
Michael Brenner
Terrorism Redux
Bruce Lerro
Being Inconvenienced While Minding My Own Business: Liberals and the Social Contract Theory of Violence
Mark Dunbar
The Politics of Jeremy Corbyn
Binoy Kampmark
Laura Ingraham and Trumpism
Uri Avnery
The Great Rift
Nicholas Buccola
What’s the Matter with What Ted Said?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail