Sen. Chuck Schumer Seeks To Extend Ban On 'Undetectable' 3D-Printed Guns

SonicSpike writes with this snippet from The Guardian: "As the technology to print 3D firearms advances, a federal law that banned the undetectable guns is about to expire. The New York senator Chuck Schumer says he is seeking an extension of the law before it expires on 9 December. Schumer said the technology of so-called 3D printing has advanced to the point where anyone with $1,000 and an internet connection can access the plastic parts that can be fitted into a gun. Those firearms cannot be detected by metal detectors or x-ray machines. Schumer says that means anyone can download a gun cheaply, then take the weapons anywhere, including high-security areas. The Democrat is pushing the extension along with Senators Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Bill Nelson of Florida. The effort was announced on Sunday."

Comments

Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[__aasehi2499]

From those who kill it in the name of defending it.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Shakrai]

No American jurisdiction that I'm aware of (even the anti-gun New York State, where I currently reside) bans firearms within movie theaters or malls. Those are private property, and private property owners are free to allow or prohibit firearms. A prohibition by the property owner may or may not have force of law, depending on the jurisdiction. Here in New York, "no guns allowed" signs have no force of law, outside of trespassing, i.e., if they ask you to leave and you refuse you've committed a crime. They're effectively in the same league as the sign that says "shirts and shoes required". Other jurisdictions (Ohio, Texas, Tennessee, to name a few) give such signs the force of law, and you can lose your concealed carry license and face criminal charges if you ignore them.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[cffrost]

From those who kill [liberty] in the name of defending it.

Schumer has no interest in liberty; he's one of the most hardcore authoritarians in the Senate. Why these assholes don't have term limits is beyond my comprehension — Feinstein (with her spy-fetishist "oversight") is good example of how too much time in office results in power-madness and opportunities to become corrupt.

I'm not just picking on Democrats here; (I'm further left/libertarian than Jill Stein;) Ds and Rs are all right-authoritarians in my eyes. Amongst them, though, Schumer takes the cake when it comes to pissing on the Bill of Rights (and not just the Second Amendment). I remember some years back, he voted for a "Juvenile Justice" bill to prosecute more kids as adults in order to extend their sentences, yet with no provisions to grant kids greater liberty in exchange for this added responsibility.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Jhon]

"It is possible to make background checks and document weapon sales."
This is already done. It's been ineffectual.

"It is possible to impose limitations on the purchaser of such weapons to mitigate the risk their tools pose to the community."
This is already done. It's been ineffectual.

"It is possible to limit the characteristics of privately-owned weapons."
This is already done. It's been ineffectual.

"Rational people can understand that there are multiple, legitimate perspectives on the question, and that allows a dialog capable of finding balance among the opposing views. "
Agreed. However, when what has been done in the past has been ineffectual, how does 'doubling down' on an ineffective policy help move the ball?

Further, we cannot and should not legislate from passion. To pass laws after a "tragedy" inflames the passions of people only serves to enact extreme laws.

Maybe -- just MAYBE we can talk about ANOTHER approach.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[girlintraining]

Anyone with $1,000 and an internet connection can get a gun made of good 'ol steel, which would perform massively better. In fact, you don't even need the $1,000. $500 would get you a very nice handgun in a private party sale.

$500? Try about $200 for an older six-shot revolver. And as far as 'untraceable' goes... this senator clearly is a total retard when it comes to understanding forensics. First, ballistics analysis becomes significantly more inaccurate with each shot; So unless you fire the gun during a crime, and then don't fire it again until they recover it, ballistics won't be of much help in a prosecution. They'll be able to throw up a lot of circumstantial evidence, but a good lawyer can put a pin in that easily enough. Secondly, most guns sold today do have serial numbers, and that's probably what he was referring to. Unfortunately, not all manufacturers put that serial number on in a way that is forensically recoverable after it is filed off or removed. If it is stamped; that is, imprinted, then it likely is. But if the serial number is raised/embossed, then forget it. Many are stamped, but not all are. Especially not older guns. As well, it's typically only the receiver that is stamped with a serial number, as this is what the law considers the actual 'firearm' part of the gun. However, depending again on make and model, a receiver is not difficult to construct from equipment available at your hardware store -- and yes, for less than $1000 too.

His argument doesn't hold water. The problem with 3D printers is that it would put a lot of businesses, well, out of business. And the biggest potential buyers of 3D printers is actually your local hardware and auto stores that right now have to pay a small fortune (which then you get to as well) ordering specialty parts out of a catalog. The entire after-market auto parts empire would deflate to maybe half its size if people could just bring in the broken part, and the store scans it in, or finds a match in a database, and then fires up the printer. 1 hour later, viola -- you have yourself a new plastic part for your car. And it doesn't cost you $60, but maybe $15 instead.

This, right here, is why this senator is pushing it. Lending credence to this theory -- look at some of his other proposals: backup cams in all cars, a bill to ban rental cars, extensive markings and ID on parts, and the list goes on. A quick look at his campaign contributors is all the more proof you need .. he's a paid shill for the auto industry.

Oh yes, firearms bad. 3d printers, terrorism, blah blah. The truth: It would put a big dent in the profits of the people writing his paycheck -- auto parts manufacturers.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[wHartHog(69)]

Many assumptions in those questions:

1) He has to justify his carry. He does not.
2) He feels he needs to. He did not say that, he said he was carrying. One does not "need" in order to excercise a right
3) He fears for his safety. I see no indication of fear. I suspect, rather, that he does NOT fear for his safety. Once again, fear of safety is not a requirement to excercise a right.
4) He lives somewhere where it is necessary to keep a firearm and ammo while working in an office environment. See above, a firearm being "necessary" is not a requirement for carry if you live in an area that is open carry, '"must issue", or no permit required.

I do however sense you projecting your own fears into the questions. I may be wrong, but if not it's ok. Make you a deal -- I have found that most folks who are "afraid" of guns & people who carry are those that have the least exposure. Actually, this is common in almost all fears. If you are near, I'll take you out, show you some basics, let you fire a few rounds from a variety of rifles, pistols, and shotguns. I'm not saying I can or will change your feelings, but at least I'll know that you are basing those on education, exposure, and experience rather than what you've heard or seen. Message me if you want to take me up on that.

Futility of certain laws

[john.l.christopher]

I understand the apprehension caused by firearms that can't currently be detected, but I don't quite understand what he's trying to accomplish in enacting a law that can't be enforced

Re:Futility of certain laws

[Sockatume]

You mean, as soon as the gun is detected, it no longer falls under the "undetectable gun" rule? That is indeed a conundrum.

Re:Futility of certain laws

[serviscope_minor]

We've had the shoebomber and the pantsbomber, so it's only a matter of time before there's a buttbomber.

There's already been one. He tried to assassinate (heh heh heh) a Saudi royal IIRC. Trouble is he kept it up his ass and almost all of the energy went in to blowing him apart. It made a godawful mess, but failed to do much physical damage beyond a rather large cleaning bill.

Re:Futility of certain laws

[Joce640k]

If I was a boss at Al-Qaeda I'd be getting people to stuff things up their ass and sending them to airports all day long. The chaos that follows when sheeple figure out that the TSA cannot protect them would be priceless. Chaos would ensue, the economy would tank overnight. That's real terrorism, I'd sleep soundly afterwards knowing I was doing my job.

The fact that they aren't doing this is just more proof that there's no real organized terrorists out there, just occasional lunatics (Boston).

All the security, all the gropings and inconvenience is just theater for the masses.

(And a way for a few people to get richer - the head of the TSA owns shares in the company that make the scanners ... surprise!)

Some sort of gun-revealing device

[Sockatume]

If only there was some way to ensure that the guns contained a large, metal object that would show up on an x-ray. You could make such an object out of a dense metal like lead to ensure that it showed up.

Re:Remind me why this is needed?

[Sarten-X]

Allow me to rephrase that for you:

1 - I don't understand law

2 - We shouldn't make stuff I don't understand

3 - Let's just get rid of stuff I don't understand

The majority of every long legal text is there to be explicitly precise about every detail of how it's supposed to work. As new loopholes are found in existing terms, new language is used in future texts to avoid them.

For example, a hundred years ago, it might have been fine to say "buy" in a contract to refer to someone getting something, but thanks to the last hundred years of legal cases, there are many ways to avoid that particular term. You could trade for goods other than money. You could arrange a sequence of gifts. The exchange could be interrupted by a sudden death. Part of the exchange could be specified in a will. Once the trade is made, the items bought could come with attached expectations or conditions, or it could be part of a package deal.

Consider law as a program for illogical machines. Just as any other programming language requires verbosity (or a significant amount of definitions) to achieve precision, so must law. Humans are just particularly good at exploiting bugs.