HR 7115
- Thread starter Don P
- Start date
Just a quick glance seems to indicate it is to regulate the sell of firearm parts and the assembly of your own firearm. Right?
At first glance it is easy to say it has no chance. However, many of the races were very close. Ted Cruz has ben a big supporter of the Second Amendment and he barely won in Texas of all places. So, might we see some of these folks willing to make a deal to be seen as more "common sense" on guns?
At first glance it is easy to say it has no chance. However, many of the races were very close. Ted Cruz has ben a big supporter of the Second Amendment and he barely won in Texas of all places. So, might we see some of these folks willing to make a deal to be seen as more "common sense" on guns?
HR 7115 is known as The 3D Firearms Prohibition Act:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr7115/text
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/hr7115/text
Well, they don't want much this time, do they?? 
Seems to me that a solid block of steel, aluminum alloy, polymer etc., meets their definition. Stretch it just a little and I think unrefined ore in the ground could be covered as well.
There are two important parts here, needful of consideration. The first is something that is NOT a firearm under the law, being regulated/restricted/banned because it could be made into a firearm.
Note that, since the item is not a firearm, we don't have a 2nd Amendment right to ownership. It falls under the much more general right to "property" which is, and has been subject to government control and regulation throughout the history of mankind.
Courts can legally refuse to hear any challenge based on 2nd Amendment grounds, and I'm confident they would do just that if such a case came before them.
There is nothing that cannot be "completed by the consumer". Even starting from the base raw materials, the "consumer" can manufacture anything desired, what varies is the amount of time, effort, and expense involved.
Pathan "gunsmiths" have been converting ripped up railroad track into functional firearms, using only hand tools, muscle power and a lot of determination, since the British were first kind enough to provide the steel by laying railroad track for them to steal...
The next thing to carefully consider is the change in direction. The proposed law is using Consumer Product Safety law for gun control.
I suppose its "for the children" because the section named in the quoted material is part of the child safety regulations, the ones that cover what chemicals can't be in a baby bottle, and such things.
SO, (potentially) under this bill, an unfinished two pound block of steel (or plastic, or...) could be a banned "hazardous product" using child safety laws.
Next item, "Assault Weapon Parts Kit".,. What is that???
That could be any, and every part for every semi auto firearm (other than the frame), ever.
Need a new recoil spring for your Glock or 1911A1, or Ruger .22? sorry, banned now, because its a semiautomatic assault weapon part...
Think its not happening? Think again. A recently passed law in Washington defines every semiautomatic firearm as a "semiautomatic assault weapon". Rifles, pistols, and shotguns, if it uses energy from firing to load another round into the chamber, it is a semiautomatic assault weapon under the law.
Clearly this needs to go away.
Oh, and don't ignore the possible unintended consequences. (assuming they actually are "unintended")
If something is declared a hazardous product, there are a host of licensing, packaging, shipping labeling and storage requirements that apply to the manufacturers and shippers, which do cost money to comply with. And, that's just the tip of the iceberg...
Seems to me that a solid block of steel, aluminum alloy, polymer etc., meets their definition. Stretch it just a little and I think unrefined ore in the ground could be covered as well.
There are two important parts here, needful of consideration. The first is something that is NOT a firearm under the law, being regulated/restricted/banned because it could be made into a firearm.
Note that, since the item is not a firearm, we don't have a 2nd Amendment right to ownership. It falls under the much more general right to "property" which is, and has been subject to government control and regulation throughout the history of mankind.
Courts can legally refuse to hear any challenge based on 2nd Amendment grounds, and I'm confident they would do just that if such a case came before them.
There is nothing that cannot be "completed by the consumer". Even starting from the base raw materials, the "consumer" can manufacture anything desired, what varies is the amount of time, effort, and expense involved.
Pathan "gunsmiths" have been converting ripped up railroad track into functional firearms, using only hand tools, muscle power and a lot of determination, since the British were first kind enough to provide the steel by laying railroad track for them to steal...
The next thing to carefully consider is the change in direction. The proposed law is using Consumer Product Safety law for gun control.
I suppose its "for the children" because the section named in the quoted material is part of the child safety regulations, the ones that cover what chemicals can't be in a baby bottle, and such things.
SO, (potentially) under this bill, an unfinished two pound block of steel (or plastic, or...) could be a banned "hazardous product" using child safety laws.
Next item, "Assault Weapon Parts Kit".,. What is that???
That could be any, and every part for every semi auto firearm (other than the frame), ever.
Need a new recoil spring for your Glock or 1911A1, or Ruger .22? sorry, banned now, because its a semiautomatic assault weapon part...
Think its not happening? Think again. A recently passed law in Washington defines every semiautomatic firearm as a "semiautomatic assault weapon". Rifles, pistols, and shotguns, if it uses energy from firing to load another round into the chamber, it is a semiautomatic assault weapon under the law.
Clearly this needs to go away.
Oh, and don't ignore the possible unintended consequences. (assuming they actually are "unintended")
If something is declared a hazardous product, there are a host of licensing, packaging, shipping labeling and storage requirements that apply to the manufacturers and shippers, which do cost money to comply with. And, that's just the tip of the iceberg...
Aguila Blanca
Staff
44_AMP said:
Too true. Cabot, the maker of VERY high-priced 1911s, makes every one of their guns from a basic ingot of steel. Not a forging ... a brick. They do it all by subtractive processing. They just keep removing material until there's nothing left but a frame, or a slide. I've toured their factory and seen it in action. Cabot's parent company specializes in grinding technology so they do it by computer-controlled grinding, but anyone with a CNC machine could do the same thing with CNC cutters and a program.
Does this means they are going to make laws punish us by making the things we enjoy illegal, without valid reason beyond the fact that we didn't elect them last term?? How.... adult of them... (and how is this different than the last 50 years "business as usual"???)
I know we get them from all sides, but do we really want to purposely elect petty, spiteful, vindictive people to not only run our government, but to represent us to the world??
WE should be smarter than that. We should be better than that. THEY should be better than that. But some of them aren't, and won't ever be.
And why should they change? What they're doing works for them, (except when it doesn't get them re-elected), why change in hope of getting the approval of a "basket of deplorables", who are "clinging to their guns and their religion".
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
It’s a political bill. It isn’t going anywhere.* It is all about feeling out what they can sell to the American public. The gun banners have decided to skip past compromise or honest discussion and go straight to “Agree now or the deal gets worse!” as a strategy.
*As the authors intend based on the sloppy and careless drafting that would be impossible to implement.
*As the authors intend based on the sloppy and careless drafting that would be impossible to implement.
Onward Allusion
New member
I remember reading something about making an AK from a shovel . . .
One single ordinary steel shovel? no.
A couple dozen shovels? (or what ever number is enough to provide the needed steel mass) then, yes. POSSIBLE.
Not easy, VERY labor intensive, not fast, but could be done by a skilled blacksmith & metal worker using only hand powered tools.
People have been consumed with the idea that one needs CNC machinery or a 3D printer to make gun (or anything else) parts, but you don't. It can all be done by hand, using files, hammers, a forge, and other 12th century (and even older) technology.
It may take weeks of careful patient trial and error work, but it can be done, and has been done across the world for ages.
Literally, all the ages, from the copper age, where man first began working metal through the iron age on up to today.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Agreed, or at least agreed that it's mostly likely not going anywhere. I don't want to say that it can't, though.
Sadly, I've been seeing the "ANOTDGW" strategy coming from the gun control crowd for a very long time. Circa 1994 comes to mind. Even worse, I think that if we ever did agree to concessions, it would be a very short time before we heard "I've altered our deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
IIRC, the CPSC is currently forbidden from regulating firearms at all. Back in the 70s(?), there was a push to have CPSC use their regulatory authority on handguns and Congress nipped that in the bud.
It looks like they want to wedge that door open again.
I'm not worried about this at the moment.
Rep. Pallone is a minor player, and none of his cosponsors have much influence, either. We have been seeing, and will be seeing, everybody come forward to push their pet gun-control bills in the wake of their anemic victories last week.
Some will be new (the "No More Atrocities with Guns Act or the No MAGA Act?"), while some will be the same thing with a different coat of paint (AWB renewals, handgun registration, etc.). Most of them will never make it to committee, much less to a floor vote.
This is the part where folks will come out and warn me not to be complacent. They're right. The problem is the signal/noise ratio.
When a bill starts to attract influential cosponsors, we need to pay attention. We won't see that until well after the first of the year, and that'll be the one we hear about in the evening news.
Between now and then, the blogs and Twitters will pick up on anything proposed, and the wolf-calling will get crazy. Best to identify the valid threats and not expend our energy on things that won't pass.
Rep. Pallone is a minor player, and none of his cosponsors have much influence, either. We have been seeing, and will be seeing, everybody come forward to push their pet gun-control bills in the wake of their anemic victories last week.
Some will be new (the "No More Atrocities with Guns Act or the No MAGA Act?"), while some will be the same thing with a different coat of paint (AWB renewals, handgun registration, etc.). Most of them will never make it to committee, much less to a floor vote.
This is the part where folks will come out and warn me not to be complacent. They're right. The problem is the signal/noise ratio.
When a bill starts to attract influential cosponsors, we need to pay attention. We won't see that until well after the first of the year, and that'll be the one we hear about in the evening news.
Between now and then, the blogs and Twitters will pick up on anything proposed, and the wolf-calling will get crazy. Best to identify the valid threats and not expend our energy on things that won't pass.
For the largest part of two years i ran an environmental remediation worksite in US Rep. Pallone's district of New Jersey. At that time the EPA was strictly enforcing US environmental law. But not on that construction site which belonged to one of Pallone's principal contributors.
IMO: Pallone is pandering to his anti-gun base. His bill will go nowhere.
IMO: Pallone is pandering to his anti-gun base. His bill will go nowhere.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Spats said:
That’s probably a wiser outlook. Sometimes the initial legislation is just a placeholder until the committee drafts the actual bill it wants. With the House in Democrat control, this could pop onto the House floor in entirely different form (much like the Schumer-Toomey-Manchin).