‘Ghost Gun’ Ban: Senate’s New, ‘Improved’ Untraceable Firearms Act Would Ban All Homemade Guns

Build your own ghost gun

Polymer80 kit gun (Travis Pike for TTAG)

Unofficial Congressional Civilian Disarmament Caucus co-chairmen Senators Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal (both D-CT) have introduced the as yet un-numbered Untraceable Firearms Act of 2020. At first glance, it resembles Rep. David Cicilline‘s [D-RI-1] H.R.3553 – Untraceable Firearms Act of 2019, which has been stalled in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security since August 2019. But the Senators are opportunistically using the COVID-19 outbreak to push their gun-regulating scheme.

Both bills purport to ban “ghost guns,” which the bills define as un-serialized firearms, and 80% unfinished frames and receivers, but there are some notable differences. H.R.3553 defines the “frame or receiver” as “the part of a firearm that can provide the action or housing for the hammer, bolt, or breechblock and firing mechanism.” That’s in line with the current definition written into law. (Added: A commenter noted that HR3553 adds a comma between “bolt” and “or breechblock.” That is a change from current law which requires the frame/receiver to house both, not one or the other. I missed that.)

The Senators, however, have obviously taken note of the very real legal issues with the ATF’s difficulties apply the legal language of what constitutes a frame or receiver. The Senate bill redefines them as “the part of a firearm that provides or is intended to provide the housing for the trigger group, regardless of the stage of manufacture.”

Defining the banned parts as what holds the trigger mechanism side-steps the little problem of AR lowers not meeting the definition (or most semi-auto pistols for that matter).

Polymer80 80% lower receiver AR-15 ghost gun

Courtesy Polymer80

The bill’s “regardless of the stage of manufacture” language covers not only 80% frames and receivers, but it’s so broadly written that it also blanks and castings, which would have to be created with serial numbers.

As for 3D-printed firearms, the instant you deposit the first drop of additive plastic or metallic powder, it would become a firearm under the bill’s language and must therefore be serialized. How do you serialize a drop of plastic? You can’t, so the bill generously allows licensed manufacturers to possess their own products during construction.

But no one else. If you’re not a licensed gun maker, you’re SOL. This bill outlaws home-built firearms completely, as it forbids non-licensees putting their own serial numbers on their own homemade guns.

H.R 3553 would have grandfathered existing unserialized home-builds so long as it’s not “in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.” The Senate bill does not.

The UFA bill also “modernizes” the ban on “undetectable” firearms. It adds long gun barrels to the list of major components that must be detectable, and specifies they must be detectable by any airport detection device, not just X-ray machines.

The final difference between the Senate bill and H.R. 3553 is this:

‘‘(ee)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, offer to sell, or transfer, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to any person other than a licensed manufacturer a machine that has the sole or primary function of manufacturing firearms

The only exception is a “person who is engaged in the business of selling manufacturing equipment to a licensed manufacturer.” That language is clearly targeting directly at Defense Distributed‘s Ghost Gunner CNC mill.

 

Since the Ghost Gunner is simply a CNC mill — only firearm-specific control files are solely or primarily for turning out firearms — that can make anything you program it produce, enforcing that language should be a challenge. What makes Ghost Gunner solely or primarily for firearms manufacture; the name? Or suppose Haas Automation sold a CNC mill to Ruger. Can they later sell that model to Wilson Sporting Goods, who use it to make golf ball molds? Would Wilson have to get an FFL or surrender their mill?

I don’t see how that ban can work. Nor does DefDist’s Cody Wilson. “As written, the bill only strengthens our company and Ghost Gunner use. You give these people years and they somehow can only write laws that empower and advantage established interests,” he told TTAG.

I agree.

But in the mean time, have you checked out our posts on building your own 80% pistol or Ivan the Troll’s excellent series on 3D printing? There’s no time like the present.

comments

  1. avatar Aaron Blake says:

    Good. One thing’s for certain: we need more gun laws.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Because the over 2000 of existing gun control laws don’t work.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        …and the tens of thousands of LEOs who are overwhelmed by the patchwork of all those city/state/federal laws/regs they’re supposed to know, and cannot possibly enforce them properly anyhow.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          this is what happens when you brag about what you can do and have done…and all but dare them to do something about it…most anti-gun types are woefully ignorant…until you “educate” them….

    2. avatar John D. says:

      Those who sacrifice civil liberties for safety get neither. Guns don’t affect the homicide rate and the government can’t have armed security following you 24/7. It’s a sad fact but it’s true, no one is coming to save us we have to do it ourselves.

      1. avatar SoCalJack says:

        “… have to do it ourselves.” Exactly. Some are proactive, more are reactive, many are not active enough. We all need to join more gun orgs, bring in new shooters, vote gun rights first, go to the range more often, teach our kids and grandkids to be safe, shoot straight, and fight back.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          “Some are proactive, more are reactive, many are not active enough.”

          Or as the saying goes, “Some people make things happen, some people watch things happen, and some people wonder what the heck just happened.”

          Hey Zimmerman, can you plz block this Maria’s IP? Been a problem now for a few weeks. Kthxbai.

    3. avatar Noktum says:

      Words written on paper for people who disregard words written on paper…brilliant.

      There are over 2k gun laws currently and they don’t help, so more of the same failed solution will help.

      That is called nonsense and illogical evaluation. A book on Logic and Deductive Reasoning …get one and read it.

    4. avatar Hankus says:

      Obliviously.

    5. avatar Francis Moses says:

      Since we all know criminals will scrupulously follow gun laws, we should all sleep better at night knowing that Congress, which if they were to design a horse would produce an octopus, has our back.

    6. avatar jack irvin says:

      Why? so we are defenseless against criminals and people like yourself, anyone who is for gun control is a danger to law abiding citizens

  2. avatar Madcapp says:

    Makes me wish Obama was still president. My gun rights were safe with him.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      You do realize this comes from two a hole senators not from Trump?
      Instead of being snarky you should be praying the evil empire doesn’t take over this fall or you’ll be a Trump fan quick enough.

      1. avatar Aaron Blake says:

        I will never forget the day Obama signed that executive order allowing the government to confiscate my bump stocks.

        1. avatar Mike Hawkizard says:

          Yeah. Because ATF has been kicking in doors, shooting peoples dogs since that happened. The great door to door confiscation of 2019.

        2. avatar WI Patriot says:

          Boo fuckin’ hoo, get over it already…candyass…

        3. avatar GS650G says:

          When the letter signed by Beto telling you when and where to drop your guns off for destruction comes in the mail try to remember what it was like before.

    2. avatar WI Patriot says:

      Typical liberal…

    3. avatar Debbie W. says:

      The Huge difference in question between the POTUS and the former POTUS is the one you are in camp with would sign the above legislation. In Nov. either you are with us or you are against us. Wipe the bump stock crybaby snot off your face and make up your damned mind, O’biden will give you something to cry about.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        After the Las Vegas massacre She would have banned a lot more than plastic bump stocks. And we all know it. We would have lost everything but .22s and birdshot for shotguns.

        1. avatar Mike V says:

          With a Republican House and Senate, she would have accomplished more than Obama?

      2. avatar Mike V says:

        Up to a half million good guys turned into felons. That’s not to be taken lightly.

        We held the line after Sandy Hook, with the President against us.

        With the House, Senate and the Presidency all supposedly pro 2a, we couldn’t after Vegas?

        With us or against us?
        By that logic isn’t the president against us too? Half million of his own voters turned into felons, oops.

        Make no mistake, I have every intention of voting for him because the alternative is worse. But let’s have our eyes open to everything.

    4. avatar Scott says:

      Only because Fast and Furious didn’t work out as planned so Obama was distancing himself, letting Holder hold the bag so to speak. If it had gone as planned the Obama Administration would have lowered the boom!

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        the intent of “fast-n-furious” was to increase restrictions on sales in the border states..by proving there was a need for them…but…as we all know….ATF could fuck-up a one car funeral….

    5. avatar Capt. Tom says:

      Sorry your girl lost.

    6. avatar frank speak says:

      something to be said for that…..

    7. avatar jack irvin says:

      Obama was/is a gun runner, arming drug runners and our enemies

  3. avatar Miner49er says:

    “the “frame or receiver” as “the part of a firearm that can provide the action or housing for the hammer, bolt, or breechblock and firing mechanism.”

    All right English majors, what is the deal, do we need a comma before the word ‘or’? Is it superfluous? Does it change the meaning of the definition in this and other laws?

    1. avatar 300BlackoutFan says:

      Good thing this is the “Truth About Guns” and not “Truth about English Language”. However, the bottom line is whether you like the Oxford comma or not, it CAN create as much ambiguity as it resolves.

      Sadly, this is your most useful comment that I’ve seen on this website.

      The bill, like 95% of bills, is DOA.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Agreed. Before everyone gets into a tizzy, let’s all remember our Civics, shall we? The House (which is currently helmed by Pelosi, and infected by the likes of the Squad) comes up with any idea they can pull out of their tailpipes, and votes to pass it. Then that bill goes to the Senate, which must also vote to pass it. If they make any changes, the revised bill must go back to the House and successfully pass via majority vote again in its new form. If the House doesn’t like it, then the process starts all over. If it passes, then the President must sign it for the idea to become the Law of the Land. Then, and only then.

        Many bills are created in the House for purely political theater, so that its members may tell their constituents that they “did something” on an issue.

        This bill is DOA.

        1. avatar PMinFl says:

          Hope you’re right.

        2. avatar frank speak says:

          consider its point of origin…i’m more worried about republicans who go along with this garbage…that bloomberg money goes deep…

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      That’s the language the two asswipes from CT came up with it seems.
      Send them an email. I’m sure they will respond with a personal note.

    3. avatar Dude says:

      I used to work for a company that had the in-house accountant proofread all major correspondence and contracts. No matter how many commas you included, she would always add more.

    4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Miner49er,

      In this case commas separate items in a list.

      Therefore, in the portion of the sentence that you referenced:

      “… hammer, bolt, or breechblock and firing mechanism …”

      1) The first item is “hammer”.
      2) The second item is “bolt”.
      3) The third and final item is “breechblock and firing mechanism”.

      To be absolutely clear, the third and final item in the list is a compound item consisting of a breechblock and firing mechanism — and ONLY a breechblock and firing mechanism.

  4. avatar Dd says:

    Isn’t Cody Wilson a convicted sexual predator? Doesn’t sound like a good practice to quote him

    1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      He was entrapped and railroaded to give people who don’t like his political actions something to try to discredit him with.

      I have a friend who likes to talk shit about the founding fathers because they owned slaves. Well, they did. And they copped out on ending slavery in the constitution setting the stage for the War Of Northern Aggression and all the shit that has followed it. Never the less these same men threw off an oppressive system that had dominated human civilizations for millennia and they enshrined the idea of individual rights and liberty and wrote as good a series of documents as could be written in an effort to protect and preserve them and to explain to other people and future generations WTF they were doing and why.

      Like my friend with the founding fathers, when you dismiss Cody over his small technical crimes you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.

      1. avatar CWT says:

        Two points. 1) Only 17 of the 51 who signed the Declaration of Independence were slave owners. 2) You are right that not pushing for abolishing slavery set the stage for civil war because there would never have been a United States. ( War of Northern aggression riiiiiiight, why are you CSA fanboys so unwilling to admit the poor southerns were duped by the wealthy slave owners to fight their war?)

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Also, the Great Compromise was created to appease those who wanted to maintain slavery and count their slaves as persons for electoral voting purposes, while most of the Founders wished to abolish slavery. The Compromise was originally intended to permit slavery for twenty years so that the issue could be revisited for discussion after the new nation was established, but slave owners delayed and exacerbated the problem throughout the Antebellum Period.

          It’s true that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves for a time, though he was against slavery. What most people don’t understand is that the estate (which already included slaves) he inherited was in debt, and his creditors prohibited him from freeing any of them, because to do so would have jeopardized Jefferson’s ability to run the estate and therefore repay his creditors.

        2. avatar Peter Gunn says:

          CSA fanboys?

          It is not unreasonable for folks to suggest recognizing an economic war with a moral veneer.

      2. avatar enuf says:

        First of all I have no objection to what informed and consenting adults in private. I do see the public health concern of not spreading disease, but the routine health checks where prostitution is legal appear to be effective on that concern. Wilson should have gone to Nevada if he was looking to pay for sex. Or dealt with an actual escort service that, while illegal, does not risk using underage hookers.

        What is not in the original five page affidavit is any explanation for how Wilson knew the victim was under the age of consent?

        What evidence can you provide links to that prove Wilson was entrapped or even targeted in some way?

        Defense Distributed continued on, became a more professionally run company and never stopped serving its original goals. So if this sex crime thing was an attempt to destroy Wilson’s pro-gun operation, it failed completely.

        Besides, why would that happen under Trump or in the State of Texas?

      3. avatar WI Patriot says:

        “He was entrapped and railroaded”

        Enabler…

      4. avatar frank speak says:

        ….SOME…of the founding fathers….let’s be clear here…concessions on slavery were necessary to secure the ratification of the constitution…and this at a time when it was still pretty common in the world…the hope was that it could be dealt with later in peaceful fashion…

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      Cody didnt have a jet and private island where Bill Clinton could visit.

    3. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      That isn’t even very skillful opposition infiltration. Go back to troll school.

  5. avatar Mad Max says:

    The right thing to do would be to make it a mandatory 10-year sentence for a convicted felon found in posession of an unserialized firearm during the commission of a crime and a mandatory 5-year sentence for non-felons found in posession of an unserialized firearm during the commission of a crime.

    Add to that, a mandatory 5-year sentence for any convicted felon found in posession of any deadly weapon during the comission of a crime.

    In addition, repeal the prohibition against convicted felons that have served their full sentence from possessing serialized or unserialized firearms for defensive purposes.

    The Federal goverment should offer law enforcement/criminal justice block grants to States that adopt and enforce Federal firearms laws.

    This would be real criminal justice reform.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Although it’s considered crazy by some I feel the felon ban on gun possession is wrong and instead there should be mandatory terms for committing crimes with guns. Mere possession shouldn’t be a new crime, it’s all based on potential. If prison for the crime itself isn’t a deterrent gun laws aren’t much of one either.

      Someone once said if a person can’t be trusted outside jail with a gun they should not be out at all. We can’t jail every criminal for life for all crime, at some point they either live outside or not. They need to defend themselves too.
      And the sage about drug dealers defending their criminality would be covered under crime with guns. Anyone breaking laws that hurt others using guns should be punished.

      But there will be no rational discussion of any this. Instead we get decriminalization arguments and complaints we lock up way too many people.

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:

        GS650G,

        Agree. I have never grasped the concept of denying constitutionally protected rights to people who have served their sentence and have been released.

        Of course, some judges release felons based upon the judges political and social justice sympathies, not based upon law. Those judges should be held accountable for the recidivism they foster.

      2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        “I feel the felon ban on gun possession is wrong and instead there should be mandatory terms for committing crimes with guns.”

        Agreed. And LifeSavor beat me to the punch on how to word my reply.

      3. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        No, I don’t care if someone is trying to kill me by stabbing or shooting. If the crime is worth five more years, it is worth five more years regardless of the tools. Anything else is steath codification of anti-gun sentiments.

      4. avatar Ah Ain't Yo Gramma! says:

        “Anyone breaking laws that hurt others using guns should be punished.”

        I supposed its should have been back in the “Engish Writing Skills 100” class, but WTF.

        “Anyone breaking laws that hurt others, while using guns, should be punished.”
        FIFY

        1. avatar wildbill says:

          So if a law hurts others and you break it, you should be punished? What about “Anyone that hurts others while breaking a law, and uses firearms while doing so, should be punished”.

      5. avatar Sian says:

        The issue being so much can be bargained away.

        It would need to be a federal mandatory rider. +5 years for firearm. +10 additional if a prohibited person. +10 on top of either if unserialized.

        If we let all the minor drug offenders out of prison we’ll have plenty of room.

    2. avatar The Truth About Government says:

      Then they will simply redefine all traffic violation to be felonies and we will all be serving long sentences. you seem to think that those in government actually have good intentions. They do not. They only care about power and control and we are all sheep on the tax farm to be sheared for their benefit. The fact that we are uppity sheep is a real annoyance to them. But they do not give a tinkers damn about crime, public safety, or peoples lives and property.

      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        Anytime possession of a firearm during a crime becomes an additional crime, the original crime should be one of violence or the firearm should be material to the crime.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          Makes sense, but they like to have the option of throwing the book at someone they don’t like.

        2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Huntmaster,

          “… the firearm should be material to the crime.”

          There you go. Simply possessing a firearm while committing a crime should not, in and of itself, be a crime.

          And here is why:
          You have no criminal record, you legally carry a firearm for righteous self-defense, you see some 40 year-old pervert proposition your 14 year-old daughter, and you promptly shove him back and tell him to get lost — without ever indicating that you have a firearm which played no role whatsoever in the event. Unfortunately for you, that pervert is the son of a local judge and the county prosecutor charges you with misdemeanor assault and battery. If mere possession of a firearm during a crime is a crime in itself, now they can charge you with that as well. And the kicker: it will almost certainly be a felony.

          No. Simple possession of a firearm should not ever be a crime.

  6. avatar EricB says:

    Since homemade firearms are used in 0% of crimes, this bill does nothing, solves nothing and prevents nothing. Except to illustrate the desire of some to keep people in their place.

    I always wanted to build a rifle. Guess I’d better get after it.

  7. avatar Prndll says:

    These fools are trying to put Mattel out of business. Every Hotwheels toy car would fall under this definition.

    It’s all based in fear with no connection to reality at all.

  8. avatar Steve says:

    No it won’t

  9. avatar AGuyWithAGun says:

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opinion-gun-control-handguns-1.5532173

    Good luck finding the comments section. This garbage was published in America’s hat, aka the 51st state.

    1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      “Good luck finding the comments section.”

      Check your browser settings, it’s immediately following the article, dude.

      All 8947 of them. Here are just a few :

      15 hours ago

      Wow the slander from gun owners against someone who is a reservist. You have no idea, as many as 30 to 40 % in some regiments have been in combat or peacekeeping. He has the right to have his opinion! And not all legal gun owners are upstanding citizens.

      15 hours ago

      Reply to @Russ Mcpherson: He has the right to his opinion, but it’s an uninformed, bad one. And as a former reservist, I know he’s talking out his bu tt.

      15 hours ago

      Reply to @Russ Mcpherson: Yip, and those in combat know more about handguns than old Tony… he had a long reserve career, but was far from a gun fighter… “His only out-of-country experience was attending camps at Ford Drum in New York State in 1979 & 1980”, until he became a Public Affairs Officer, and got some good tours in, but far from a hand gun expert. Simple google search. Not insulting the man, just CBC’s use of him as a hand gun expert.

      15 hours ago

      Great article Tony.
      Never let a crisis go to waste
      Especially if it pushes your ideology.
      With any luck. The next crisis won’t take away a freedom you care about.
      We’ll see “

  10. avatar WI Patriot says:

    This will be DOA…

  11. avatar R D B says:

    I was wondering why the dancing girls were in the advertisement until I read the “not legal in NY”.
    looks like an expensive tool.

  12. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Seig Heil democRat Senators Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal. Continue on with your racist and nazi based Gun Control Agenda you lowlife self serving ratbassturds.

  13. avatar Debbie W. says:

    For the Trump bashing snot nosed bump stock crybabies…Cease whining about a noise making contraption and go purchase a real machine gun before your Trump bashing helps elect o’biden and machine guns are banned across the board for civilians. It is disgusting how politically inept some nitpicking gun-owning slackers can be.

    1. avatar Rando says:

      People aren’t really upset about the bumpstocks themselves. The concern is that the ATF was allowed (or forced) to reinterpret the clear language of the law to say the word “automatically” is “ambiguous” in order to ban a product which clearly did not violate the very clearly written law of the law. Essentially an unelected bureaucratic agency creating new law out of thin air (not part of the legislative branch) and the courts giving deference to the executive branch to redefine “automatically” contrary to the plain definition of the word. Disregarding gun rights it is a huge overstep of the executive branch, and highlights the danger of the courts giving deference to administrative agencies.

      Furthermore this lays the groundwork to likewise redefine all semiautomatic firearms as machine guns under current law, because they are “readily convertible” with bump stocks. This is literally the argument being made in a lawsuit in Nevada right now.

      Imagine waking up tomorrow and the ATF has said all semiautomatics are machine guns, and the courts saying you have no grounds for a lawsuit because they will defer to the expert opinion of the ATF on its own rules.

      1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

        More likely that they’ll start redefining braced pistols as SBRs and shotshell-firing “firearms” (such as the TAC-14 and Shockwave) as SBSs. But, little doubt that redefining all semi-autos is now on their radar. Terrible precedent, whether or not one cares about bump stocks.

      2. avatar Sian says:

        I wrote a long response to the ATF on their bumpstock ban.

        It required them to ignore basic common sense when defining what an ‘action of the trigger’ is. Fundamentally, a bumpstock changes how you actuate the trigger, but not the fact that you are the one actuating the trigger with muscle power. The removal of springs from the bumpstock equation makes this absolutely clear. Any interpretation past this is wholesale fantasy.

    2. avatar Mike V says:

      “Nit picking”

      Half million law abiding Trump voting gun owners practicing their rights turned into felons because all the politicians on our side including the President, couldn’t get themselves to do what they promised they’d do.

      “I’ll never let you down” unless of course it’s politically easier for me too, or something like that…

      I find it interesting that almost without exception those ok with the bumpstock ban or unwilling to do something about it, they almost always mention how they think it’s a toy or not needed or, go buy a full auto….

      Is that how rights work?

      I’ll vote for Trump because the alternative is suicide.

      1. avatar 9x39 says:

        Right on target.

        You forgot one thing. Those complaining about the people rightfully incensed over the bump stock ban are so myopically focused that they don’t even realize that giving an inch at a time is EXACTLY what got us into this position on the whole. A fight to retain tiny vestige scraps of what was once a vibrant and full civil right, now effectively gutted whilst we’re still being sabotaged from within by the likes of these types.

        Not a single step, except forward. That is the attitude that should be predominate, but alas, it is not. And they wonder how we got so upside down in this fight. Giving up ground, instead of retaking it. Short shortsightedness rules supreme…

        Clarification: I couldn’t care less for bump stocks, binary triggers, etc. myself, but the principal is what gets me heated.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      too many people of power, wealth and influence own automatic weapons…and are not viewed as much of a threat….YOU,… on the other hand …are…get it?….

  14. avatar Deplorable Dan says:

    Welp, time to buy some more p80s

  15. avatar jakee308 says:

    Lawmakers never seem to realize that the more laws you make the more likely they are to be either ignored or disobeyed.

    This sort of cycle has all happened before. Why does anyone think the Founders thought some of these things up? Because they’d been tried and failed and only lead to more and more government restrictions and less freedom for the citizens.

    States should strive to have the least amount of law necessary to maintain peace and balance between contending individuals. Whenever the state strives to pass prior judgement on the value or lack of value of something is when winners and losers are created and artificial subterranean markets develop.

    Happens all the time and since ancient days. But lawmakers never learn nor do the tyrants ever quit. They must be forced out or made to acknowledge the rights of the citizen or they will be disposed of one way or another.

    1. avatar LifeSavor says:

      Jakee,

      “Lawmakers never seem to realize that the more laws you make the more likely they are to be either ignored or disobeyed.”

      Maybe we should provide financial incentives for lawmakers to reduce the number of laws in force.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      ….but it does permit selective enforcement,..and act as a deterrent…which was probably all that was intended…while they could track the people who purchased these items down…they probably won’t…out of sight, out of mind….

  16. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    These idiots don’t understand that their law applies to 1 foot sections of steel fence post.

  17. avatar Dude says:

    Democrats should never again be allowed to control any of the three branches.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      As they are antithetical to a Republic.

  18. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Luv me some ghost guns, now I’m a scared,BOO !

  19. avatar Bob Bertling says:

    Hey Readers,
    Just wait until Nov,30 2020,
    Then assess the Old USA..

    Think of it this way, like a box of
    CRACKER JACKS !!!

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Goign to go vote on the 30th????

      1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

        Have to wait for all the vote harvesting to get to the final result…

  20. avatar Steve says:

    Nobody cares, do what you want to do

  21. avatar enuf says:

    Numerous proposed Bills never get out of committee, and plenty never get into committee. What’s needed is an assessment of a given Bill’s chances to get into and out of committee, followed by how likely it is to gain votes on the floor. Without all that, we may as well be talking about the weather.

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Yeah congress is really interested in vetting and debating all bills so they can thoughtfully vote on it. That is, unless it’s a leftist’s wet dream 3 trillion dollar 1800 page bill in which case it’s rushed to a vote. I feel so good with the country’s future in the hands of such serious and capable people.

  22. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    If the ..(snort) Law Givers are so bloody concerned about serial numbers why not just require all current and existing owners put their own serial numbers on the alleged ‘ghost guns’?

    Isn’t that what happens in regards to certain NFA items anyway? Instead…The Ban Hammer comes down and they wonder why people get ticked off. Boggles the mind. The reality is that this about control..as usual…

  23. avatar PMinFl says:

    Gee, why did I ever leave Connecticut with assholes like this for representatives.??

  24. avatar Kurt Schreiber says:

    I believe it is time to serialize everything beginning with thoughts about owning or building firearms, firearms components, ammunition and/or ammunition components, shovels, knives, hammers (those are really dangerous) and machetes.

    Then we will truly be safe.

  25. avatar Kimber says:

    It seems the writing is clearly on the wall for the 2A crazies. It is only a matter of time – 6 months to be exact – when the triumvirate of Biden, Beto, and Obama will take control of this country and end the insanity of the gun radicals. 60 Minutes has politicized the ghost gun dilemma with their brilliant segment which recently aired. Now that it has been made public gun control advocates and the newly awakened Democratic party will unite in a tidal wave of blue socialism which will engulf the country and put an end to the tragedy of firearm possession. Get ready to be reeducated and civilized penis envy owners.

    1. avatar Mike V says:

      Thanks for the comedic relief, you must be friends with Vlad?

    2. avatar Montana Actual says:

      This is the most naive, freedom hating shit I have ever read in my life. Your blue wave will tsunami your ass, and take everything you have. You’d go from the current 37% tax rate, to 60+%. You think you understand what you advocate, but you have no idea. How exactly would you protest war from a government that controls its own people the way you want it to? Because, obviously, if you hate guns so much, you don’t like war, right? What is the first thing a government like yours would declare? War. On it’s own INNOCENT people for having personal property meant to keep them safe against tyranny, and any country it so chooses there after.

      TL;DR You will never win. Mostly because YOU never do anything, you expect it to be done for you.

    3. avatar Peter Gunn says:

      The power resides in the hands of the people- literally. It is the people who will decide whether or not they are going to “give up” the power they currently hold in their hands.

      I used to worry about the threats of removing the power from the hands of the people. I don’t anymore. I stopped worrying when I realized that the threat is merely a spectre of an illegitimate action for which the people already have the solution for in their hands– right now.

      It’s a straight-forward analogue- constitutional constraint will be confronted with righteous resistance. We have been here before. We have a track record on this specific issue. The outcome is not a mystery. Only the criminally malicious would even consider such stupidity. If the people are presented with such an ill-advised ultimatum, the people will resolve it. There’s really no point in getting worked up about it.

      Don’t worry. Bring it.

    4. avatar Hannibal says:

      Nobody is paying attention. While that may be a bad thing as some bills can be snuck in, let’s not act like 60 minutes has ignited some sort of popular mob against ‘ghost guns.’

      Amazingly people don’t give a shit about non-issues when there’s pandemics, recessions and incompetent governments to think about.

  26. avatar Montana Actual says:

    Good luck. Like we didn’t know they would try this? It’s the whole point to making them. Fuck you, come and take them.

  27. avatar Alan says:

    Regarding this complaining over and or about “home made guns”, they are completely legal, and should so remain. End of story. By the way, armed criminals should be punished in such manner as to clearly show that society does not accept such behavior.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      for your personal use…think the real fear here is that may not be the case…the democrats are playing the long-game here….slowly crushing our rights in the coils of some gun control anaconda….and those who brag about what they can and do get away with just make it easier for them…foolish behavior, indeed…

  28. avatar Hannibal says:

    Lawmakers shouldn’t be able to title their laws. Just keep them as “Bill 2020-144” instead of being able to put shit like “PATRIOT Act” (lol) or “Save Our Children Law.”

  29. avatar Nww says:

    In order to keep and bear arms a person should also be able to manufacture arms. Otherwise keeping and bearing is rendered pointless. I know the power hungry democrats dont really care about the second amendment anyways but I thought I’d point that out.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      even in colonial times, most purchased their guns rather than make their own….

  30. avatar Paladin says:

    Like the “farm bill” that’s where they hide the welfare money payments! Never trust the politicians that want to help make it safer! Get them out of office would be a great start!
    Convention of states!! National reciprocity would be a good start to reduce crime!

  31. avatar Ben Willard says:

    Isn’t there a gun law already? Oh yeah, it’s called the 2nd Amendment!!!!!!!!!! That’s the ONLY law that matters!!

  32. avatar Sian says:

    First question that needs to be asked:

    How many crimes has the ability to trace a firearm solved, and how many went unsolved due to recovery of an untraceable firearm?

    I suspect the answers to these questions would not be something favorable to passage of this bill.

  33. avatar Noel says:

    If you believe in the government, I pray for you, I hope you open your eyes and wake up. Remember when something happens , the government has a bunker, while every body is on there own to protect them selves. The second amendment was there for a reason.

Leave a Reply to SoCalJack Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email