Sen. Chuck Schumer Seeks To Extend Ban On 'Undetectable' 3D-Printed Guns 550
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."
Futility of certain laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Futility of certain laws (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Remind me why this is needed? (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed.
No new law should be allowed to be passed unless:
1 - Written in plain English, no legalese, the layman MUST be able to parse it and understand it
AND
2 - No more that 2 pages at most.
AND
3 - Two or more existing laws are repealed for each new law passed (This can be revised down to one-for-one once the current lawbooks are cut to 1/4 their current size)
Re:Futility of certain laws (Score:3, Interesting)
It always seemed to me that controlling the ammunition would be easier than controlling the weapon itself. Making a gun is relatively easy compared to making your own gunpowder, especially if you only need the gun to be able to fire a few shots, as is the case with the majority of guns made on the current stock low-end 3D printers that he's concerned about. I'm not in favor of controlling the distribution of gunpowder to the degree they try to control guns, but I do think it would make more sense from an enforcement and regulation perspective.
Re:Futility of certain laws (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd take my chances with the bullet.
80% of people shot with handguns survive. True statistic, learned it in a ballistics wounding seminar from a cardio-thoracic surgeon. I'd much rather face a handgun than a knife.
Layman just don't appreciate the energy differences between pistols and rifles. Pistols don't operate at the energy levels necessary for remote wounding effects, so they can only kill through two effects: Blood loss and the destruction/disablement of the central nervous system. The former takes time, sometimes a lot of it (stories abound of people surviving gun shot wounds for hours before finally receiving medical attention), whereas the latter is a comparatively small target that's only occasionally hit in a gunfight.
Rifles are a different animal entirely of course, but they're rarely used in crime and not something that those outside of the military generally need to concern themselves with.
Re:Remind me why this is needed? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
See, that's why I figure that the best way to address the situation is to divide up a bill like this:
Paragraph 1: The mission statement. What is the essence of the bill, and what is it ultimately trying to accomplish in broadest terms?
Paragraph 2: The general rules. State what the bill says is or is not acceptable, as it would apply to the overwhelming majority of cases. Rules that do not directly reflect the mission statement are dismissed from the bill (no more riders or earmarks).
Paragraph 3: Funding and enforcement. Who is paying for it, and who is ensuring that the rule is enforced?
Paragraph 4: Duration. How long will this bill last before it needs to be renewed? 15 years, tops.
Pages 2-10: Exceptions and legal speak. These are the pages intended to close loopholes, answer for as many exotic cases as possible, and be the part that is referenced if a court case needs examining. All statements made here must explicitly clarify and apply to Paragraph 2, and are subject to Paragraphs 3 and 4.
This way, the bill is divided up into the parts that are legible by any reasonable person, and the parts that ensure that define the rules of the court cases involving more unique situations.
Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here. (Score:4, Interesting)
Washington DC has a de facto ban on guns in these places, since it has a de facto ban on handguns. At the university where I work, there was a "CAMPUS ALERT!" that went out about a year ago saying "a MAN with a GUN was spotted near campus, everyone be careful, the police are looking for him". My reaction was "wait, has he actually shot or threatened anyone?" Nope, was just a dude with a gun, but that's not allowed here.
Arizona (a place with very liberal gun laws) incidentally gives property owners a strong right to prohibit firearms: the assumption is that guns are allowed if they're not forbidden, and many bars and restaurants have "no guns allowed" signs by their doors. You don't lose your concealed carry license because no such license is required there, of course.
Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here. (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [politicalcompass.org]. 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. (Score:5, Interesting)
OTOH, the ONLY movie theater within 20 miles witrh a ban on guns that had the force of law behind it in Colorado was the exact movie theater that the Aurora shooter chose. It was not the biggest, closest, or most popular. Instead it was the only one that banned guns.
Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here. (Score:4, Interesting)
I was just trying to dispel the notion that it's illegal to carry in movie theaters and malls. Hospitals and liquor serving establishments are the only pieces of private property I can think of where firearms are banned by statute in a significant number of American jurisdictions, and not even in all American jurisdictions. I can carry in bars here in the blue state of New York, and the nearly-as-blue state of Pennsylvania just to our South. Hospitals are also allowed in NYS, unless they're attached to a University.
Well, I think it's very significant that he passed up 9 closer theaters that did not explicitly prohibit guns, to single out the one that did. Presumably he didn't want anybody shooting back.