Yes, they have. Both were ruled not to be AOW under the NFA (no tax stamp required). You don’t really think the feds would allow an illegal gun to be advertised and sold in the open, do you?
I own a sporting goods and gun dealership in southeastern Wisconsin. I get these legal info bulletins all the time. Both of those weapons are completely legal.
What was their reasoning for allowing a gun that violates a straight reading of H.R.4445?
They don’t violate it. Read the actual law.
Personally, I’m sick of guns being treated as Constitutionally Protected Toys.
Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 - Amends the Federal criminal code to make it unlawful to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm: (1) which is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar (after the removal of grips, stocks, and magazines) by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Exemplar; or (2) of which any major component, when subjected to inspection by x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.
You believe these guns are not detectable by standard metal detectors??
From that act, it seems like legal guns could be made to visually look like anything so long as they would still be identifiable as a gun in a see-thru inspection machine. So something like this “gun in a bible” would be legal:
By pulling the silk bookmark, the gun could be fired while the book was closed. However, the gun would be clearly visible if it went through an airport detector.
Do you believe that the standard procedure when a fake toy gun is pointed at a police officer is “Would you mind handing over your supposed toy gun so that I may run it through this metal detector I just happen to have in my car?”
Do you think that a gun that folds up to the shape and size of a stack of credit cards or a smartphone meets the requirement that it “generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component” in a metal detector?
What does that have to do with the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988?
What does it matter what I think? Or you think? The ATF apparently thinks these guns do not violate the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.
I do not have the equipment to test them, nor do you. Nor am I a expert.
I think that guns designed to get through airport security should be illegal, and the laws makes them so. Mind you, I am not a big fan of the way TSA handles airport security, but that is another issue.
As @Dewey_Finn noted, my question is about the second part. A folded gun has a frame and grip which obviously do not generate an image that “accurately depicts the shape of the component”. But some elements will be accurate, like the barrel. Perhaps the ATF thinks that is sufficient. But what is coming through the X-ray machine is not going to look like the iconic L-shape of a handgun, that anyone can recognize, but rather some dense collection of parts.
Seems like there’s a flaw in that plan. (From 2017, maybe they’ve improved )
The results of the tests showed that the TSA screeners failed to detect weapons, drugs, and explosives almost 80 percent of the time. While the exact failure rate is classified, multiple sources indicate it is greater than 70 percent.
The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General carries out “Red Team” tests periodically to check the competence of the TSA’s ability to detect and stop fake weapons from getting through airport security.
In 2015, the TSA failed these tests by an even larger margin—95 percent.
If they can’t recognize actual gun-shaped guns, how can they be expected to spot these things?
I certainly agree that most of what the TSA does is security theater, though my question is about the law, not the effectiveness about that law.
The entire study was classified, so we don’t really know this. The study might have been specifically focused on slipping weapons past the TSA by disassembly or other means of changing their appearance. We also don’t know if guns did better or worse than the average.
True, they do seem somewhat problematic to me, but I do not have the equipment to test them, nor do you.
The ATF apparently thinks these guns do not violate the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. I can not explain their reasoning.
I do not support guns that do not look like guns, I think it is a bad idea. However, sometimes the law is a ass. If the manufacturers submit them to the ATF and the ATF passes them, that is all that really matters.
What part of he word or don’t some of you understand?
Lots and lots and lots of rifles already break down and just look like a pile of parts not resembling a gun. But they’ll set off a metal detector from a distance.
You’re the one confused about the word or. If a law says that it’s unlawful to do this or that, then both those things are unlawful.
The law isn’t that confusing. The first part covers weapons that people carry on their person through a metal detector (this was before backscatter machines) and is meant to ban plastic guns and the like. The second part covers guns that travel through the X-ray machine and can’t be recognized visually.
The law accounts for rifles that break down through the language any major component. An AR-15 breaks into an upper and lower receiver, among other parts. They’re still large and recognizable components.
But that language is also fuzzy. What counts as a major component in a small, folding gun? Especially one that’s explicitly meant to give the illusion of being something else?
If it meant that the statute would use the word and instead of or.
In other words, at least one of those two standards has to be met but not both of them. Which should explain to you how a pistol that looks like a card or a cell phone is still legal.
No that’s not correct.
Unlawful if A) or B) = unlawful if either clause applies
Unlawful if A) and B) = lawful unless both clauses apply
I don’t agree that is what the statute is saying. If it was guns resembling credit cards and cell phones would not be legal.
But they are.
This is the correct take, however none of that statute applies to guns that don’t have the surface appearance of a gun. The statute asks if the gun sets off a metal detector, guns that simply look like something else will set off metal detectors. The statute then asks if the major components are accurately depicted on x-ray machines, which they will be if the appearance changing tech doesn’t change the shape or metallurgy of the major components.