- Messages
- 6,824
- Reactions
- 17,613
TLDR: Are commercially manufactured polymer firearms exempt from 18 USC 922(p), or do the manufacturers use plastics doped or painted with radio opaque compounds?
I have recently been trying to understand the legalities behind polymer frames/receivers. Clearly, there must be a way that these are legal otherwise Glock, Ruger, Smith & Wesson --- probably 90% of major manufacturers --- would all be in a hard position in the context of 18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts
The statute in question is somewhat poorly written in the sense that a "firearm" is defined in (p)(2)(A) as not including the frame or receiver which would suggest that (1)(A) & (B) are not pertinent to such objects. The argument against this interpretation would be found in (p)(2)(B) -- the very next provision -- which defines "major component" as including the frame and receiver. I don't think the courts would make a ruling that essentially writes (p)(1)(B) out of existence merely because the word "firearm" appears as the last word in (p)(1) rather than the first word of (p)(1)(A).
Anyway, no amount of googling has revealed to me whether the polymers used by manufacturers is doped with barium or some other radio opaque substance so that the pistol frames would show up on xray machines. Given the ubiquity of polymer framed firearms they must be legal and so I'm interested in understanding whether this is due to an exception to (p)(1)(B) or whether it is because the polymers are doped or painted with a substance to make them show up on xray machines. (Perhaps they aren't considered "any person" but I doubt that as well because (p)(3) protects manufacturers when delivering prototypes for testing, which would be meaningless if this did not apply to manufacturing companies.)
This is the meat of the statute I'm interested in:
(p)
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm -
(A)
that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar; or
(B)
any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component. Barium sulfate or other compounds may be used in the fabrication of the component.
I have recently been trying to understand the legalities behind polymer frames/receivers. Clearly, there must be a way that these are legal otherwise Glock, Ruger, Smith & Wesson --- probably 90% of major manufacturers --- would all be in a hard position in the context of 18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts
The statute in question is somewhat poorly written in the sense that a "firearm" is defined in (p)(2)(A) as not including the frame or receiver which would suggest that (1)(A) & (B) are not pertinent to such objects. The argument against this interpretation would be found in (p)(2)(B) -- the very next provision -- which defines "major component" as including the frame and receiver. I don't think the courts would make a ruling that essentially writes (p)(1)(B) out of existence merely because the word "firearm" appears as the last word in (p)(1) rather than the first word of (p)(1)(A).
Anyway, no amount of googling has revealed to me whether the polymers used by manufacturers is doped with barium or some other radio opaque substance so that the pistol frames would show up on xray machines. Given the ubiquity of polymer framed firearms they must be legal and so I'm interested in understanding whether this is due to an exception to (p)(1)(B) or whether it is because the polymers are doped or painted with a substance to make them show up on xray machines. (Perhaps they aren't considered "any person" but I doubt that as well because (p)(3) protects manufacturers when delivering prototypes for testing, which would be meaningless if this did not apply to manufacturing companies.)
This is the meat of the statute I'm interested in:
(p)
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm -
(A)
that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar; or
(B)
any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component. Barium sulfate or other compounds may be used in the fabrication of the component.
