I have a legislative alert for SurvivalBlog readers: H.R. 7115, the “3D Firearms Prohibitions Act”
is on its face perhaps one of the most unconstitutional laws ever written. It
is sponsored by Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr., Democrat, of New Jersey. It
will most likely be reintroduced in the 116th Congress. This proposed law,
introduced on November 2, 2018, is purported to ban 3D printed guns. But it
is actually about milling (subtractive) technology
rather than 3D printing (additive) technology. I have news for Mr. Pallone: All guns are “3D”, once they are off the drawing
board!
Pallone’s bill goes far
beyond milling machine processes. It would ban firearms parts kits, ban
electronic publishing about 80% receivers offered for sale, require the owners
of receiver blanks to beg the issuance of a serial number before then can be
milled, and even retroactively bans
unserialized receivers that have been made since 1968. It also arbitrarily sets
a 90 day limit for number stamping/engraving and completion of the receiver.
You can read the full text of the bill, here.
The summary preamble to H.R.
7115 reads: “To prohibit the sale, acquisition, distribution in commerce, or
import into the United States of certain firearm receiver castings or blanks,
assault weapon parts kits, and machinegun parts kits and the marketing or
advertising of such castings or blanks and kits on any medium of electronic
communications, to require homemade firearms to have serial numbers, and for
other purposes.” But even a cursory reading of Pallone’s bill shows that it is
blatantly unconstitutional, in many ways. Here are a few:
- The
proposed law violates the 1st Amendment by making it illegal to
communicate to others about the availability of certain gun parts.
- The
proposed law violates the 2nd Amendment. If anything, battle rifles
deserve the strongest protection of the 2nd Amendment, since those are the
guns most suitable for use by the citizen militia. But Pallone’s law
focuses on them and their component parts as a supposed “banned hazardous
products”.
- The
proposed law violates the 4th Amendment because it eliminates the inherent
privacy of citizens in assembling guns from parts of their own manufacture
or that have no bearing on interstate commerce. It also violates our
privacy by forcing us to beg for serial number assignments for already
legally-possessed guns from Federal Firearms License holders.
- The
proposed law violates the 5th Amendment by requiring the owners of
post-1968 unserialized privately-made guns (or receivers, or receiver
blanks, or parts sets) to report themselves to Federal authorities,
possibly incriminating themselves.
- The
proposed law also violates the 5th Amendment’s “Takings” clause, because
it bans “certain firearm receiver castings or blanks, assault weapon parts
kits, and machinegun parts kits” without leaving any viable market.
It is a ban without compensation.
- The
proposed law exceeds the mandate of the Commerce Clause (Article 1,
Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution) by creating new
over-reaching Federal authority on 50-year-old gun receivers and other gun
parts that can date back more than 100 years. These parts clearly
have long been out of
Interstate Commerce and thus have no Federal nexus whatsoever. (That is
private intrastate commerce.)
- The
proposed law violates the Ex Post Facto Law Clause by retroactively creating the crime of
owning a post-1968 unserailized firearm receiver. This is a gross
violation of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution.
That clause prohibits the enactment of ex post facto laws.
- Amazon.com Gift Card i...Buy New $25.00(as of 05:30 EST - Details)
- The
proposed law is also void for vagueness. According the Cornell Law School web site, this is “a
constitutional rule that requires criminal laws to state explicitly and
definitely what conduct is punishable. Criminal laws that violate
this requirement are said to be void for vagueness. Vagueness doctrine rests on the due process clauses of the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
By requiring fair notice of what is punishable and what is not, vagueness
doctrine also helps prevent arbitrary enforcement of the laws.” In
this instance the law bans “parts sets” without properly defining how many
parts constitutes a “set”. The law is also horribly vague in that it does
not define what percentage of completion constitutes a “receiver
blank”. It is 80%? It doesn’t say. Not does it define what
percentage constitutes a completed “receiver”. Is that 81%? Or 90%? Or
99%? Or 100%? Again, it is quite vaguely written.
All in all, this proposed law is grossly unconstitutional on several
levels and in several respects. Under the traditions and standards of
American Jurisprudence, we are not bound to obey this law, and it cannot be
enforced. (Lex Mala, Lex Nulla.) It
is null and void, even before passage.
This bill will get a new number when it is re-introduced. Be forewarned
that it may be slipped into a large legislative package, such as an omnibus
funding bill. Please contact your Congesscritter and Senator to mention this
particular legislation. While you are at it, remind them that “universal
background checks” is a gun-grabbers’ code phrase for “banning private party
sales.” Also, be sure to mention: I oppose any and all new
gun laws and Red Flag laws! – JWR
James Wesley, Rawles (JWR) is Founder and Senior Editor of
SurvivalBlog, the original prepping /survival blog for when the Schumer Hits
The Fan (SHTF). He began SurvivalBlog in 2005. It now reaches more than 320,000
unique visitors weekly. JWR is a journalist, technical writer, and novelist.
His survivalist novel Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse, is a modern
classic that reached #3 on the New York Times bestsellers list. Two of his
other novels have also been best New York Times bestsellers. Jim is the
originator of the American Redoubt movement and a frequent talk show guest on
shows such as Alex Jones. He is also a retreat consultant specializing in
off-grid living, rural relocation, and survival preparedness.
Note: Permission is granted for re-posting of this entire article, but only if done so in full, with proper attribution to James Wesley, Rawles and SurvivalBlog, and only if the included links are preserved.)
Copyright © 2018 SurvivalBlog.com
Note: Permission is granted for re-posting of this entire article, but only if done so in full, with proper attribution to James Wesley, Rawles and SurvivalBlog, and only if the included links are preserved.)
Copyright © 2018 SurvivalBlog.com