Is NRA throwing printed guns under the bus? by Kurt Hoffman

Another worthwhile article by  Kurt Hoffman:

As this column has discussed recently, the December 9 "sunset" date of the "Undetectable Firearms Act" is prompting the usual forcible citizen disarmament jihadist suspects into entirely predictable "sky is falling" hysterics about "invisible" plastic guns being smuggled onto airliners, into courtrooms, etc. Being a big believer in keeping one's friends close, and one's enemies closer, this correspondent receives email notices from various gun ban groups, including Gabrielle Giffords'/Mark Kelly's "American's for Responsible Solutions." They too are on the "invisible guns" panic bandwagon:

If you or your family have ever visited an airport, courthouse, or even some hospitals and schools, you know that a metal detector can be the last line of defense between your loved ones and a criminal with a gun.
But on December 9th, a relatively obscure but important law that prohibits the sale or shipment of firearms not detectable by a walk-through metal detector is set to expire.

It's called the Undetectable Firearms Act and in the age of 3D printers that can produce a gun made almost entirely of plastic, it's imperative that Congress move to reauthorize the legislation.

Nothing too shocking so far--forcible citizen disarmament groups wouldn't be forcible citizen disarmament groups if they didn't stay busy fabricating excuses to forcibly disarm citizens. It's near the end of the email that one cannot help but raise one's eyebrows (emphasis added):

In the past Republicans and Democrats have come together to renew the law by simple voice votes. Even the NRA has agreed not to oppose the bill.

Granted, perhaps the "agreed not to oppose the bill [bills, really--H.R. 1474 has an identical companion bill in the Senate, S. 1149, and as of Friday, Sen. Nelson introduced a second Senate bill, S. 1774, the text of which is not available, but is apparently intended to renew the ban for only one year]" should be taken with a grain of salt--there is of course nothing new about "gun control" groups lying--need a recent example? Also, the claim is not that the NRA is supporting the legislation, only that they will not oppose it--which at least makes them better than the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Still, the claim of NRA's avoidance of the issue can hardly be described as implausible. As for "not opposing" the legislation being better than actively supporting it--sure, marginally. By that standard, though, the American Lung Association could be called just as valuable a gun rights organization as the NRA--they don't seem to be supporting renewal of the "Undetectable Firearms Act," either.

More Here at St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner