Never heard of these laws. I was looking into buying an EAA Windicator, costs less than my .22, as I'd like a cheap beat-up-the-finish kind of snubby, but apparently they can't be sold to Illinois residents, among others, because of meltdown point laws. I am assuming this has something to do with metal quality?
Meltdown point laws?
- Thread starter bclark1
- Start date
Metal quality has something to do with it, but it's mostly political.
Zamak (zinc, like Hot Wheels cars) has a lower melting point than steel. Many "Saturday Night Specials" are made of Zamak. Requiring a certain melting point makes the cheap junk pistols illegal.
Except that they forgot about aluminum.
Zamak (zinc, like Hot Wheels cars) has a lower melting point than steel. Many "Saturday Night Specials" are made of Zamak. Requiring a certain melting point makes the cheap junk pistols illegal.
Except that they forgot about aluminum.
Well, I can't imagine all the permutations right now, but I'm strangely comfortable with a law that outlaws the selling of low-quality guns. If I'm putting a round through it, then I'm taking the risk of the thing blowing up in my hands. I want proper safeguards in place to assure that the gun manufacturers are actually making good products, and that the guns will hold together the way they are supposed to.
Any other thoughts on this?
Any other thoughts on this?
These "low quality gun" laws have precisely nothing to do with the actual quality of the weapon, but instead focus on the price. If the weapon sells at a low price, large numbers can be sold. Since they didn't want those numbers sold but they can't put a prohibitive price on them without being accused of affecting the market, they focused on "low quality" of the metal as a "test".
We have numerous causes of action on the books regarding product liability, and criminal laws which punish those who intentionally or negligently make unreasonably dangerous products. Those legal remedies are deemed sufficient in pretty much every other aspect of life (although the gov't has been steadily increasing its nanny state influence).
Look at it this way. A person who can't afford a Glock might be able to buy a Jennings, Raven, or Lorcin. That weapon might be the only defense they have against an intruder. Do we really want to deny them that weapon because it has a life expectancy of 1000 rounds, when less than 100 will be likely fired through it in its life?
Ok. I'll grant you that there is some correlation between quality of manufacture and price of the gun. However, if it were up to me, I would rather the gun manufacturers look for new ways to manufacture high quality guns more cheaply, rather than simply using old techniques and crappy materials to make cheap, fall-apart guns.
I think that gun makers should be held to a higher standard for quality control, even beyond those laws out there that use "negligence" as a standard for quality control. These guns are made to protect lives. They CANNOT fail when we need them. And, low quality guns are a Faustian bargain, at best.
I don't really agree with your argument that poor quality guns should be available for poorer people who cannot afford a decently constructed gun. I don't agree with this point, because there are plenty of decent-quality guns available out there for $100 or less. Sure, the Springfield 1911 is retailing now for around $850, but a poorer person can most certainly afford a decent, functional weapon for personal defense, without breaking themselves, and most importantly, WITHOUT settling for a flimsy and potentially dangerously constructed weapon.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, safeguards in industry are not necessarilly a bad thing. If there were some alterior motives behind the passing of the particular law in question, then that's too bad. But, I'm not immediately opposed to having some mandated quality standards in firearms manufacture.
I think that gun makers should be held to a higher standard for quality control, even beyond those laws out there that use "negligence" as a standard for quality control. These guns are made to protect lives. They CANNOT fail when we need them. And, low quality guns are a Faustian bargain, at best.
I don't really agree with your argument that poor quality guns should be available for poorer people who cannot afford a decently constructed gun. I don't agree with this point, because there are plenty of decent-quality guns available out there for $100 or less. Sure, the Springfield 1911 is retailing now for around $850, but a poorer person can most certainly afford a decent, functional weapon for personal defense, without breaking themselves, and most importantly, WITHOUT settling for a flimsy and potentially dangerously constructed weapon.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, safeguards in industry are not necessarilly a bad thing. If there were some alterior motives behind the passing of the particular law in question, then that's too bad. But, I'm not immediately opposed to having some mandated quality standards in firearms manufacture.
There are a wide variety of safeguards already in place. Products liability is an area where manufacturers have far fewer protections under the law than other areas. If someone makes a bad design, they are only liable if they are negligent. If they manufacture a fair to good design negligently, they are strictly liable. These have been the traditional way of maintaining quality, even if they resulted in some rather egregious rulings in favor of consumers (i.e. even stupid consumers tend to make out quite well). But maybe you're right. These laws haven't worked in the case of low quality guns because they don't get sued over the quality of the weapons. They just got sued over the availability (brought on by the low price).
It's worth noting that many of these low quality laws have exemptions for law enforcement use. Ask yourself this: if the point is really that the weapons are unsafe for use, why allow cops to use them? Do the lawmakers hate cops that much, or is that a tacit admission that the laws aren't in any way directed at the weapons, but as to the people who should be allowed to own them?
It's all about getting rid of the cheap handguns. The safety of the public really has very little to do with it at all.
If safety was what they were after, they'd ban bubba'ed guns, Hesse Arms guns, old damascus barreled shotguns, and accidently double-charged shells, as well as requiring hearing and eye protection.
Cheap crappy Zamak guns aren't nearly as dangerous as they are just shoddy and unreliable. What counts is that because they are so cheap, they are percieved as the choice of criminals (and perhaps the poor). Whether they actually are or not is for another thread, but this allows them not only to take a swing at percieved crime, but at gun ownership as well.
And, aluminum framed guns are an entirely different matter.
If safety was what they were after, they'd ban bubba'ed guns, Hesse Arms guns, old damascus barreled shotguns, and accidently double-charged shells, as well as requiring hearing and eye protection.
Cheap crappy Zamak guns aren't nearly as dangerous as they are just shoddy and unreliable. What counts is that because they are so cheap, they are percieved as the choice of criminals (and perhaps the poor). Whether they actually are or not is for another thread, but this allows them not only to take a swing at percieved crime, but at gun ownership as well.
And, aluminum framed guns are an entirely different matter.
The "melting point" laws refer to the minimum melting point of metal framed handguns. This was a way for legislatures to get cheap guns off the market place as they were perceived as "too easy" for the criminals to obtain.
In California, the law was augmented with extra tests -- specifically a maximum malfunction test and a "drop test". It was believed that these three requirements - melting point, malfunctions and drop tests - would result in the prohibition for sale of guns like Lorcins, Raven, Jennings, Bryco, et al. Surprisingly, all of these "ring of fire" brands passed the state tests.
These laws were promoted as attempting to get "Saturday Night Specials" off the streets for "public safety" because these inexpensive guns were "the weapons of choice" for criminals. Politicians also claimed they were inherently inaccurate and unreliable and in some cases likely to self-disassemble in use. In essence, they were forcing criminals to use better quality guns which would be safe, reliable and accurate, knowing full well that what they can't afford, they will steal - thus increasing crime.
That many of these small, inexpensive guns were used by the poor or elderly on fixed incomes, as a means of self-defense (even if they just felt better having it) was not a subject for discussion. Nor were the racist overtones of the term Saturday Night Special (see: Clayton Cramer's excellent article The Racist Roots of Gun Control on the web) or the racist results of depriving poor minorities of self-protection.
Samurai -- these "bargains" have escaped me, even on Gunbroker. Are there any decent newly manufactured guns selling for less than $100? And what do you define as "decent quality"?
While I am all for quality guns, there exists a market for an inexpensive "bare bones" handgun for the poor or low income people. These need not be hi-cap 9mm's. I've seen a poor, elderly man defend himself quite adequately with a very old Hopkins & Allen break-top .32 S&W, a surgeon's widow stop a burglar by perforating him with an H&R .38 S&W revolver, and a nurse who stopped a rapist by "gelding" him with a Jennings .22.
However, I have no doubt that when some bright boy figures out how to injection mould frames and designs an inexpensive quality .22 or .32 pistol that can be mass produced & sold for $89, the politicians will find a way to outlaw the gun to keep it out of the hands of the great unwashed masses.
In California, the law was augmented with extra tests -- specifically a maximum malfunction test and a "drop test". It was believed that these three requirements - melting point, malfunctions and drop tests - would result in the prohibition for sale of guns like Lorcins, Raven, Jennings, Bryco, et al. Surprisingly, all of these "ring of fire" brands passed the state tests.
These laws were promoted as attempting to get "Saturday Night Specials" off the streets for "public safety" because these inexpensive guns were "the weapons of choice" for criminals. Politicians also claimed they were inherently inaccurate and unreliable and in some cases likely to self-disassemble in use. In essence, they were forcing criminals to use better quality guns which would be safe, reliable and accurate, knowing full well that what they can't afford, they will steal - thus increasing crime.
That many of these small, inexpensive guns were used by the poor or elderly on fixed incomes, as a means of self-defense (even if they just felt better having it) was not a subject for discussion. Nor were the racist overtones of the term Saturday Night Special (see: Clayton Cramer's excellent article The Racist Roots of Gun Control on the web) or the racist results of depriving poor minorities of self-protection.
Samurai said:
Samurai -- these "bargains" have escaped me, even on Gunbroker. Are there any decent newly manufactured guns selling for less than $100? And what do you define as "decent quality"?
While I am all for quality guns, there exists a market for an inexpensive "bare bones" handgun for the poor or low income people. These need not be hi-cap 9mm's. I've seen a poor, elderly man defend himself quite adequately with a very old Hopkins & Allen break-top .32 S&W, a surgeon's widow stop a burglar by perforating him with an H&R .38 S&W revolver, and a nurse who stopped a rapist by "gelding" him with a Jennings .22.
However, I have no doubt that when some bright boy figures out how to injection mould frames and designs an inexpensive quality .22 or .32 pistol that can be mass produced & sold for $89, the politicians will find a way to outlaw the gun to keep it out of the hands of the great unwashed masses.
, as long as they are designed and manufactured with quality in mind.The point has already been made, but... There is an assumption being made that cheap guns are far more easily obtainable to criminals than are higher-cost guns. While this point may have some validity to it, I'd argue with it's origins. The reasoning behind it is that since cheap guns are... well... cheaper to buy, they will be more easily purchased by your common criminal, and thus more often employed by them in crimes. Since they're cheap, they will also be more readily thrown away after a crime has been committed, and a new gun purchased by the criminal.
Flaws in this logic are astounding.
First, think about the fact that most "common criminals" you're likely to encounter have already been convicted of one or more crimes that would keep them from being able to legally purchase any gun, much less one after another, after another. Second, ask yourself how many guns used for criminal purposes are actually bought by the criminal, vs. those the criminal has stolen. Third, a greater percentage of crime happens in poorer or underprivileged neighborhoods.
The people living in those neighborhoods are those most likely to be living on less income, and are less likely to be able to afford the cost of a Kimber, or Les Baer. In most places, even CCW is priced out of their budgets, so much of the time, these budget-priced guns must stay at home, or in a car's glovebox unattended. It's no wonder, then, that these budget-priced guns can tend to be the most stolen by criminals, and then used in crimes. Making these budget-priced guns unavailable to the general public is only going to deprive those living on a lower income of their ability to defend themselves against criminals.
The answer is not to ban all guns under a certain purchase price, or made from a certain materials. The answer is to make CCW more available (or affordable) to those who need it most.
Flaws in this logic are astounding.
First, think about the fact that most "common criminals" you're likely to encounter have already been convicted of one or more crimes that would keep them from being able to legally purchase any gun, much less one after another, after another. Second, ask yourself how many guns used for criminal purposes are actually bought by the criminal, vs. those the criminal has stolen. Third, a greater percentage of crime happens in poorer or underprivileged neighborhoods.
The people living in those neighborhoods are those most likely to be living on less income, and are less likely to be able to afford the cost of a Kimber, or Les Baer. In most places, even CCW is priced out of their budgets, so much of the time, these budget-priced guns must stay at home, or in a car's glovebox unattended. It's no wonder, then, that these budget-priced guns can tend to be the most stolen by criminals, and then used in crimes. Making these budget-priced guns unavailable to the general public is only going to deprive those living on a lower income of their ability to defend themselves against criminals.
The answer is not to ban all guns under a certain purchase price, or made from a certain materials. The answer is to make CCW more available (or affordable) to those who need it most.