A coalition of America’s most prominent sports organizations has penned a letter to members of Congress asking them to renew a long-standing gun control law. The companies are requesting that the legislature renew the Undetectable Firearms Act (UFA), arguing that the law makes it easier to protect those attending sports events.
The act, which is set to expire soon, is yet another anti-gun law that needlessly restricts the right to keep and bear arms and should not be renewed – although it probably will be.
In the letter, the companies claim the UFA “has helped keep Americans safe in public spaces that utilize metal detection to prevent the admittance of firearms, including at the thousands of events that our organizations host each year.”
The document continues, explaining why the law is supposedly necessary for helping them protect attendees at sporting events.
The safety of the millions of fans, participants, and other personnel who attend our events is our top priority. Our organizations work in close coordination with federal, state, and local law enforcement and rely on advanced security procedures, including metal detector screening, to ensure the safety of our events. Allowing the UFA to sunset would hinder our ability to prevent firearms from entering stadiums and arenas and reduce the fan safety measures in place at our events. Both parties in Congress have long recognized the importance and effectiveness of the UFA, as the law has been reauthorized on a bipartisan basis three times in its 35-year existence. We urge you to reauthorize this critical law so that our organizations can continue to keep our fans safe.
The UFA, which was enacted in 1988, was ostensibly intended to prohibit the possession, manufacture, and sale of firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or X-ray machines. It was a response to advancement in the development of non-metallic firearms.
The coalition of sports organizations, along with other proponents of the legislation, argue that it plays a crucial role in preventing bad actors from smuggling guns into stadiums and arenas. Yet, this argument overlooks the reality when it comes to the nature of criminality. Like other gun control laws, the UFA erroneously assumes that the bad guys seeking to bring firearms into sporting venues would reconsider this course of action because of the existence of laws prohibiting it.
This letter also raises an issue that its authors might not want us to notice. If these people know that criminals don’t obey laws, then why haven’t they employed measures that could detect non-metallic firearms? Why have they not taken measures to protect their customers in the event that a bad guy ignores the NFA and brings in an undetectable gun?
It seems to suggest that these people know that there is little risk of someone carrying out such an act but are pushing for gun control anyway. Either that, or they believe it to be a threat, but do not feel inclined to invest money and resources into protecting their people and are only pushing for this law to make it appear as if they are doing something to ensure the safety of those attending their events.
The bottom line is that restricting the Second Amendment rights of responsible Americans does not promote public safety. In the end, it only makes people more vulnerable to criminals.