Mr. Speaker, in the last few years, we have had to make a lot of adjustments in security for our Nation's airports, government buildings, and ports. We have recognized that this heightened security is necessary to protect the United States from terrorist threats. However, even before the events of September 11, 2001, Members of Congress recognized the possibility of threats from terrorists, both from within and without our borders. In 1988, Congress passed a ban on undetectable firearms to prevent the manufacture, sale, importation, shipping, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms that could not be detected by metal detectors or x-ray machines. Since passengers are not permitted to bring firearms on to planes and individuals cannot bring firearms into government buildings, it only makes sense that we ensure that the firearms purchased in this country are detectable by the security machines in those places. The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 provided a sunset on the ban after 10 years to take into account any changes in technology of security machines or firearms. The ban was extended in 1998 for an additional 5 years, and H.R. 3348 would extend this ban for an additional 10 years. The penalties will remain the same: any violation of the ban is punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to 5 years. It is easy to see why this ban, now more than ever before, must be extended.
Jim Sensenbrenner: “Mr. Speaker, in the last few years, we have had to make a lot of adjustments in security for our Nation's airports…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the need to extend the Undetectable Firearms Act during a House floor speech.
Share
More from Jim Sensenbrenner
But obstruction of Congress, when there is no referee, there is no adjudication, there is nothing but a majority that says, 'You give us what we want until we find a crime, or we are going to throw you out of office,' that is so…
Successful implementation of the mandate for competition in the antitrust laws encourages innovation, which is the main driver of economic growth.
It's up to us to constructively deal with this so that we can do more than just have a press release and make a difference.
I appeal that ruling of the Chair as well, which I believe is appealable. The SPEAKER pro tempore. That ruling is not subject to appeal. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro…





