Should we have fought the passage of the Undetectable Firearms Act?
On one hand it's really unconstitutional because the Gov't has been granted no power here.
On the other, which was pointed out in comments in my earlier UFA post, that detection technology has advanced so much since it was first passed that any gun is detectable now; making the requirements of the law essentially meaningless.
Opposing renewal would have been the principled stand, but at what cost? Pyrrhus anyone?
Looking at the way it passed, our congress critters don't care. But that's a symptom, not a cause.
On one hand it's really unconstitutional because the Gov't has been granted no power here.
On the other, which was pointed out in comments in my earlier UFA post, that detection technology has advanced so much since it was first passed that any gun is detectable now; making the requirements of the law essentially meaningless.
Opposing renewal would have been the principled stand, but at what cost? Pyrrhus anyone?
Looking at the way it passed, our congress critters don't care. But that's a symptom, not a cause.