The Many Lies Of “Protect”MN, Part XIX

I was going to title the piece “Rep. Heather Martens:  Her Lips Are Moving” – but now that Protect MN has hired Richard Carlbom, the PR father of gay marriage in Minnesota, I have to upgrade my approach.

Because while Representative Martens has never made a substantive true claim in all her years of working for victim disarmament in Minnesota, it’s time to start tracking Carlbom by the same standards.

An email went out to “Protect”MN supporters the other day.  Here was the money quote:

Click here to sign the petition urging our lawmakers to renew the Undetectable Firearms Act before it expires on December 9…

… Guns without a certain amount of metal can slip by metal detectors in public places. There is no reason responsible gun owners would need to have unconventional weapons like these. The Undetectable Firearms Act keeps guns that evade critical security measures off the streets. The law is set to expire on December 9. We urge legislators to renew the Undetectable Firearms Act to keep these dangerous guns away from airports, courtrooms, and other public places.

Now, the fact is that no such weapons have ever been produced.

And not only does every single gun owner know it, but so do the Feds.  Neither the Departments of the Treasury or Justice have ever enacted any regulations pursuant to the “Undetectable Firearms Act”…

…because there’s nothing to regulate.


The “Undetectable Firearms Act” is an utterly empty gesture.  It affects no crime.  It affects no manufacturing.  It is yet another empty gesture that groups like “Protect”MN flop in front of their ill-informed followers to give their shapeless concerns some rallying point.

I responded to the petition:

It’s not. This is empty legislation – even the feds have not bothered to enact any regulations due to this “act”, because *it refers to weapons that don’t exist*. There ARE no “undetectable firearms”.

“Protect”MN is lying. Again.

I think that sums it up.

8 thoughts on “The Many Lies Of “Protect”MN, Part XIX

  1. Finally! An example of what “crap” legislation is. The low-information people and commenters on this blog now have a benchmark to go by prior to declaring something “crap” legislation. MBerg = Service

  2. In the American form of Democracy (constitutional Republic), the rights of individuals and well organized minorities are protected by the constitution and various checks and balances in the legislative process. It is designed to promote slow bottom-up change, not top-down change. Laws tend to lag popular opinion, and brief enthusiasms burn out before they have much effect. America will get more gun control when Americans reach a consensus that more is needed. American democracy makes it difficult for the majority to use the power of the state to crush a minority. That’s how the system is supposed to work. For those that want to live where the state has power to crush minorities, move to Russia.

  3. American democracy makes it difficult for the majority to use the power of the state to crush a minority.

    Provided the minority works hard to keep it that way.

  4. Another case of where someone wants to stack more laws on another. Banning “undetectable guns” (which don’t exist), rather then relying upon the existing law/regulation which prohibits (virtually) all guns on planes. Because we all know that a law banning a murder using a gun with a 30 round magazine is more effective than the law which just bans murder.

  5. Slightly off topic, I’m surprised that nobody for, or against, this kind of bill ever seems to consult with a metallurgist about whether one could make a good barrel, spring, trigger pin, casing, or even bullet out of anything but metal. Finding nonconductive materials which are dense, have high tensile strength and hardness, and the like is not easy, and you’d figure someone (NRA are you listening?) would make that case.

  6. BB,


    I’m trying to think of a non-conductive metal that’d be able to serve as a gun barrel. Titanium is less conductive, but I’d imagine if it were good barrel material that someone would have tried already. If someone has, it’s news to me – and remember, it’s only less conductive.

  7. Or a bullet. You need something soft and dense. OK, what non-conductive materials qualify? And good luck ejecting a thermoplastic casing after firing–and it shatters.

    You might try carbon fiber for a barrel, but wear would be a huge issue. there is a reason bicycle companies use it for frames, but not cranksets. And titanium is a nonstarter because its conductivity (2.5×10^6 S/m) is similar to steel.

    The most embarassing thing about this fiasco is that people a the BATFE, which theoretically should know a little bit about how firearms are made, are not calling out Senator Schumer and others on this nonsense, but are working with him. Either they’re aware of some “unobtainium” material out there, or the agency is hopelessly politicized.

    My bet is on the latter. Great reason to end the BATFE if they can’t figure out basics like this.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.