Judge Blocks Release of Blueprints For 3D-Printed Guns (nbcnews.com) 401
U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik issued a temporary restraining order Tuesday to stop the release of blueprints to make untraceable and undetectable 3D-printed plastic guns, saying they could end up in the wrong hands. Defense Distributed reached a settlement with the federal government in late June allowing them to freely publish the 3D files. NBC News reports: "There is a possibility of irreparable harm because of the way these guns can be made," he said. Congressional Democrats have urged President Donald Trump to reverse the decision to let Defense Distributed publish the plans. Trump said Tuesday that he's "looking into" the idea, saying making 3D plastic guns available to the public "doesn't seem to make much sense!" Eight Democratic attorneys general had filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to block the federal government's settlement with Defense Distributed. They also sought the restraining order, arguing the 3D guns would be a safety risk. Earlier today, Senate Democrats introduced two bills addressing 3D-printed guns. The first bill would make it illegal to publish 3D-printed gun blueprints. The second bill would require weapons to include at least one metal component with a serial number to make them traceable. Downloads of the 3D-printed gun blueprints have been suspended until Cody Wilson [the owner of Defense Distributed] reviews Lasnik's order. It is unclear how many times the blueprints were downloaded, but some news outlets say the online manuals have been downloaded thousands of times and posted elsewhere online.
bittorrent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:bittorrent (Score:5, Informative)
Re:bittorrent (Score:5, Interesting)
Computing is more walled off than ever before.
False. I got access to the Internet in 1984, when 99.99% of the public had no access, and there were severe restrictions on what you could say or do. Commercial activity was illegal. I got my first domain in 1990, after filing plenty of paper forms and explaining to the US government why I needed it, and what I was going to do with it.
I helped set up an office in Germany in the early 1980s, and we had to go to the post office to get a permit to operate a modem.
Re: (Score:2)
False. I got access to the Internet in 1984, when 99.99% of the public had no access, and there were severe restrictions on what you could say or do.
Really? Who exactly was doing the restricting? This is the first I'm hearing of this.
Commercial activity was illegal.
Can you cite a statute? I know of no such law, and I'm pretty sure such a law never existed.
Re:bittorrent (Score:5, Informative)
Really? Who exactly was doing the restricting?
The federal government prohibited commercial traffic over any NSF (National Science Foundation) funded network, which at the time included most of the Internet backbones. The "no commercial use" restriction was not repealed until around 1990.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, ... what you do with it, is your business.
but the internet also existed outside of the US, and there never was such a restriction.
Why would it? You pay for the "phone" line
Re: (Score:3)
You see, it was this little thing called ARPAnet funded by the Department of Defense and later the National Science Foundation. Commercial traffic wasn't allowed on it until sometime in 1990. Laws had nothing to do with it. I remember even into the mid 90s .com/net was $200/yr for registration and .org was $100 and you had to prove you were weren't using them for commercial purposes still. (only org)
Re: (Score:2)
and we had to go to the post office to get a permit to operate a modem. ... ... we simply plugged them in.
Then you are probably the only one who did that
I know no one who went for a permit
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting also how predictions of rising gun deaths post liberalization of the gun laws are not matched by the statistics.
Do you change your mind as a result of your incorrect hypotheses? Nah. You double down on the bullsh!t in the hopes of convincing the ignorant and stirring up outrage in your flock.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:bittorrent (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not an "expert" but I know a lot about guns. I have built them. I can build a functional 1911 from a receiver casting in less than 2 hours. Once you learn how to do it, it's not hard.
LK
Re: (Score:3)
I kind of wonder if a plastic gun isn't likely to be at least as dangerous to the user as to the target. I don't think a working zip is hard to cobble together from hardware store parts, but I think if I tried that I'd probably prefer metal parts to plastic in the areas in contact with hot, rapidly expanding, gases.
Re:That's The THing About All of This... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, you're partially right.
There are no real TRUE 100% plastic guns really, I think the guy made ONE that was about 99% plastic, but he still had to have some metal for a firing pin.
You're right that a gun made mostly out of plastic is useless, BUT....here what is happening.
Let's take an AR 15 for instance. For this gun, the ATF ONLY considers the lower receiver, the part usually that is serialized, to be the weapon. For a commercial one sold ready to go, it has to be serialized and you have to buy from FFL and do the paperwork.
But, all the other components, the upper receiver, the barrel, the bolt, the trigger, and all the other moving parts, are not considered the weapon and can be freely bought without any paper work or trace..
What people are doing, is 3D printing the lower receiver....with no serial number and buying all the rest of the parts to build an AR.
It still isn't going to generally last all that long, but it will be functional for awhile.
People have been able to CNC and mill their own receivers out of metal, and it is perfectly legal....for personal use and no selling.
In fact there has been an industry spring up past years, of the 80% lower....which is almost a fully fashioned commercial metal lower receiver.
This is sold with jigs to use with drills and other home tools, to finish out the milling, and from there you can also build a nicely working AR, just add the other parts as described above. You don't have to register it, or serialize it.
I believe the 1911 handgun is easy to do, and they sell lower polymer kits for you to build your own block in this fashion.
Only recently has the state of CA started passing laws for citizens to have to register and serialize these type of things after you build them, but that's about the only place.
Anyway, it has been long settle law that you can build your own guns, as long as they aren't fully automatic. If prescient holds, along with the 1st amendment argument, this should pass.
I"m imagining when metal 3D "printing" becomes more economical and common, then, fully metal guns can be readily printed, but that's not in the near future that I can see at this time.
Re: (Score:3)
I can build a functional 1911 from a receiver casting in less than 2 hours.
Bullcrap. You can't build a functional 1911 with a 3D printer. You could build one with a CNC mill and lathe, but that would take way more than 2 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Learn to read!
I didn't say I could do it with a 3D printer. I said from a receiver casting!
It's an unfinished piece of metal that is legally not a firearm. I can and have drilled the necessary holes and milled the slide rails and barrel seat. I can do this and the assembly in less than 2 hours.
LK
Re: (Score:3)
80% receivers don't take that many operations to finish, and you don't have to remove much material at all. Don't really even need the CNC part or the mill or the lathe. Barrels, trigger, magazine, etc, are largely unregulated and can be purchased without a background check or waiting person
And additive manufacturing processes can and have been applied to metals. I've recently hard of a wire-feed welder to deposit each layer, being combined with a machine bit to remove excess metal to shape. It's coming,
Re: (Score:2)
*CNC part of the mill*
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I didn't realize you guys were talking about building only the receiver. Sure, a skilled machinist could do that in 2 hours.
Re: (Score:3)
Quite so. It should be noted that all the other parts of a gun can be bought legally (with no license of any sort required, or proof of anything other than ability to pay for the parts), so once you've built the receiver, you can assemble the gun trivially.
Re: (Score:2)
Expensive ones do.
Maybe someone should see if they can get shapeways.com to 3D print a working gun and mail it out, without anyone at the company realising what they're doing.
They also offer metal 3D printing as well as plastic. Maybe you could even print a reliable multi-use gun.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, 3D printers do work exactly like that.
1. Download a file from the internet (or alternatively, design your own part).
2. Hit print.
3. Get an rough approximation of the part you wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
> But since you think they are magical boxes that make production precision devices at the push of a button
No, but from what I remember when we were first talking about this 3D printed gun years ago (why is it back in the news now?) you do get a set of relatively easy to assemble, barely strong enough parts at the push of a button, minus the firing pin which was a nail or something.
Re: bittorrent (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have had the plans for 5 years. I don't want a 3D printed gun. I want to have the choice.
LK
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have had the plans for 5 years. I don't want a 3D printed gun. I want to have the choice.
LK
You have the choice already, just like you have the choice to rob a bank.
Why don't you? This already law. Passing it again (Score:5, Informative)
> If the blueprints are already easy to create and readily available why doesn't everyone 3D print guns yet
I posted the instructions here on Slashdot two days ago. Why didn't you build one?
Here are some reasons I don't build one for use with regular, lethal ammunition:
The ones I can buy are much better than what I'd build. Same reason I don't build a toaster, or a bicycle.
It's safer not to.
Some cops might not know it's legal, so I could go to jail until my lawyer handles it.
As for "would require weapons to include at least one metal component", that's already existing federal law. Passing the same law again is theater for the uninformed.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
(p)
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearmâ"
(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.
Re: (Score:3)
Evidently this proposed law would require putting a serial number on that piece of metal, which would be entirely useless without reporting it to the government. It's likely an attempt to require registration of all DIY "ghost" guns. Which is not quite as bad as a universal registration law which would assuredly kick off Civil War 2.0, but is of course a step in that direction.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is being protected? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the blueprints are already easy to create and readily available why doesn't everyone 3D print guns yet, this order protects that from happening.
And what, exactly, is being protected here?
There is really no justification for this court order, on several levels.
It's a violation of the 1st and 2nd amendments on its face. It's also unenforceable, and it ignores the abundant precedent of gun-making instructions and kits that have been on sale since forever. It also ignores the results of the previous attempts to ban information: the export laws against cryptography.
It also goes against existing federal law that says it's legal to make firearms for personal use.
Even if you think it's a new type of situation not covered by the 1st and 2nd amendments, it's a violation of the 10th amendment which says that rights not covered are held by the states and/or the people.
It's clear that as soon as people accept that the government can ban information in this one "very important" issue, they'll be ratcheting it up for the next "only slightly less" important issue, and the whole thing will lead to a labyrinthine set of rules and laws banning various selected topics using different metrics.
The only reason this is happening in the first place is because the anti-2nd amendment crowd see it as a new and unexplored way to try to curtail our rights.
This is really a stupid move, and the only result will be that someone has to burn money, time, and effort proving what is plainly obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
Completely agree but would add that "a labyrinthine set of rules and laws banning various selected topics using different metrics" has been in place for generations. Obscenity law. Slander. Libel. "I know it when I see it". "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater". Noise ordinances (if the 'noise' is loud speech). Hate speech. Fighting words.
In practice it's ad-hoc. If someone's gut feeling is that saying such-and-such SHOULD be illegal, then 1st amendment be damned, and it's always been that way.
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL and certainly not a US one, but isn't the point of orders like this normally to allow for further legal proceedings to be completed before something irreversible is done?
In the UK the judge would have to think that there was either a reasonable chance that the people seeking to block the release might ultimately prevail, or that the release could be so serious that it merits a pause to hear legal arguments.
In other words it sounds like the judge isn't making any kind of decision on constitutional righ
Re: (Score:3)
Just because the files are able to be acquired through torrents or some other "unofficial" site, doesn't mean that should not take steps to prevent its distribution. Yes, it's on the internet. As long as somebody cares, it'll be somewhere. The same can be said about actual guns. You can
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As law professor Glenn Reynolds AKA the Instapundit has pointed out, they have all the justification they feel they need, "the point of gun control is to humiliate and grind down flyover people and demonstrate that the Ruling Class is ultimately the, well, Ruling Class" [pjmedia.com].
They're also getting somewhat hysterical now that there's the slight possibility that the Supreme Court will have a 5/4 majority against gun control again.
Re: bittorrent (Score:2)
Because they're crap last ditch weapons at best. The only reason to currently make one is for the novelty factor.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they're expensive to print... not many people have 3D printers, and also, the results are likely to be lower quality durability and reliability than commercially available firearms.
The 3D option seems like a last resort for the public if the government goes rogue and starts shutting down all the gun shops.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's even easier then that. You can create a firearm that has less chance of exploding in your hands with a few bits and pieces from the hardware store. It's also quicker, and cheaper. So if you want a firearm, printing is the worst of all your options. It's just attention whoring.
And still, you need to get the ammo from somewhere.
Re: bittorrent (Score:2)
Nah, the working bits of impromtu guns will continue to be made of metal, it's easier, safer and cheap. Plastic or wood is for the rest.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
SCOTUS hinted in the Trump travel ban ruling that they were considering putting limits on injunction powers of judges. SCOTUS can set policy for judges.
Re: (Score:2)
We are not a DIRECT democracy, otherwise known as Mob Rule. We are a Representative Democracy, or a Republic.
I learned this shit in Middle School.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Wow, even bragging about learning to be ignorant... you are brave!
We are not a representative Democracy either.
A Republic does not equal a Representative Democracy, this is a farce only believed by ignorant people that cannot read and comprehend things. A representative Democracy would have results in Hillary winning the election because she had the majority vote. Additionally, SCOTUS would either be abolished or have their ability to rule laws as Unconstitutional removed. Also, to be a Representative De
Re:It's time to break the judiciary (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy is literally, Majority Rule, or the idea of power vested in the people to at least directly or indirectly through a system of representation.
There is no such thing as "indirect" democracy. There is representative democracy, which is what nearly every "democratic" country has, and there is regular democracy, where the plebiscite votes on everything directly.
Democracy is great, if you have around 100 people. Getting 300,000,000 people to rationally debate nuanced and complicated issues of law - I'll take our crappy representative democracy any day.
Re: (Score:2)
"There is no such thing as "indirect" democracy."
umm.... A "Representative Democracy" is what an "indirect democracy" is. Sure we can argue over semantics by looking at a specific nation and see if their actual system of government in practice actually creates the effect of a direct or indirect democracy, but the words do have a meaning.
In the case of a "Representative Democracy" it means a person that wins an election because they have the popular vote. Or are you prepared to say that a Democracy is poss
Re: It's time to break the judiciary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Those of us that think they know everything really piss of those of us that actually do."
You don't say!
US is NOT a democracy of any kind. We have several anti-Democracy controls in place "specifically there to prevent Democracy".
Seriously, are you folks so ignorant that you won't even take the time to pick up a book on history and read what the founders of our nation wrote? Several efforts were take to specifically prevent America from being a Democracy of any kind. It is 'literally' in the history book
Re:It's time to break the judiciary (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ruling's been written, just not yet published. DD has filed a suit in the West Texas Circuit court against the NJ and LA attornites. https://twitter.com/NewJerseyO... [twitter.com] https://www.scribd.com/documen... [scribd.com]
Trump tweeted opposition to 3D printed guns (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Trump tweeted opposition to 3D printed guns (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump tweeted opposition to 3D printed guns
Not really. Trump has tweeted opposition to lots of things, say illegal immigration. His tweets left no doubt in anybody's mind that he was opposed to it. On this subject he said, "that doesn't make sense." That is not opposition. That is hedging. After all, he is a business man and has become a politician. He is waiting to see which way things go in terms of public opinion and more specifically with his supporters.
Which if you ask me kind of lets the cat out of the bag on the NRA's purpose. They're not a gun rights lobby, they're a gun manufacturers lobby.
I do not see how the two are incompatible. In fact, manufacturers are likely aware that if they oppose things like 3D printed firearms, they will anger their customers. The same way that Starbucks kicking out the two black men (in Philadelphia, I think) angered lots of their customers even though it has nothing at all to do with their product. Yet, their customers expect the company to act a certain way. Gun owners would be the same way and would not take kindly to gun manufacturers opposing 3D printed firearms. Besides, those are not really competition for them.
And I don't see them taking kindly to the prospect of just anyone being able to manufacture their own firearms. Yeah, yeah, I know, you can barely shoot 5 rounds before it's ready for the junk heap. But give it 20 years and we'll see. And industry lobbies definitely think long term.
In general, companies would rather that their customers not have the option to switch away. Even health insurers (hello Obamacare, until the risk pools were gutted) and teachers unions (school vouchers == bad) are the same way. The difference is every body has to have healthcare (it's the law) and for the most part you don't get a choice of school for your kids. Firearms are totally discretionary for practically every individual who owns them, so the gun manufacturers cannot be as obnoxious as the teachers unions and health insurers.
Re: (Score:2)
The "gun manufacturing lobby" is such a tired line of BS. I don't even know what it means, nobody is being forced to buy a gun and you can't have gun rights without guns which means gun manufacturing. Gun manufacturing and gun ownership have a lot of interests aligned, it's entirely sensible that the NRA supports gun owners and gun makers.
I don't understand the hype about 3D printed guns. Real guns are easier to get and actually work. You still need ammo. Plus improvised guns have been around for a lon
Re: (Score:3)
The "gun manufacturing lobby" is such a tired line of BS. I don't even know what it means
The lobbyists and advocacy groups representing gun manufacturers. In general they want rules that encourage people to buy lots of guns. Restricting 3d printed guns would qualify though I don't know if they had anything to do with Trump's tweet or if it's just Trump doing something random.
nobody is being forced to buy a gun and you can't have gun rights without guns which means gun manufacturing. Gun manufacturing and gun ownership have a lot of interests aligned, it's entirely sensible that the NRA supports gun owners and gun makers.
Some, but not all. For instance, the gun manufacturing lobby would probably like more restrictions on private gun sales, though they're very leery of pissing off their customers.
I don't understand the hype about 3D printed guns. Real guns are easier to get and actually work. You still need ammo. Plus improvised guns have been around for a long time -- zip guns -- the only thing novel about this is the "3D" part.
Plus isn't 3D printing still not quite ready for prime time unless you're a pretty serious hobbyist? Not unaffordable, but putzy and technically challenging to produce good output.
I'm more worried about pipe bombs than 3d guns.
Not ready yet, but as the previous poster sai
"big gun" (Score:2)
Making a gun at home has been fairly easy without a 3D printer and the results are MUCH better than a printer can produce. Will metal sinter
Re: (Score:2)
"Tricking people into buying guns"?
I think the dynamic is probably different -- more like the world seems a lot more unhinged than it used to be, and so many states now allow concealed carry. To me that alone explains most gun demand. And the unhinged part isn't an NRA conspiracy, it's the output of the mainstream media. If anyone is to blame for tricking people, it's the media.
The only way I buy into this concept further is that there's just more gun makers and diversity of firearms to choose from. The
Re: (Score:3)
Most people making '3d printed guns' are only printing the lower receiver, and buying a standard mass-produced stock/upper receiver/magazine. Furthermore, the lower receiver doesn't need to be particularly strong, and can thus last longer than 5 rounds even if made of 3d printed plastic.
It is now possible to purchase small mills specifically made to finish full-metal lower receivers, those can withstand shooting hundreds of rounds, at least. Forget 20 years from now, it's available today.
Re: (Score:2)
Which if you ask me kind of lets the cat out of the bag on the NRA's purpose. They're not a gun rights lobby, they're a gun manufacturers lobby. And I don't see them taking kindly to the prospect of just anyone being able to manufacture their own firearms. Yeah, yeah, I know, you can barely shoot 5 rounds before it's ready for the junk heap. But give it 20 years and we'll see. And industry lobbies definitely think long term.
Bwa! Yeah, it's Trump's fault, lol. And the NRA.
If only Dems ran everything, and their pressure groups, we'd all be 3D printing guns left and right.
Let's ban sharp plastic objects! (Score:2)
Let's ban sharp plastic objects, because bad people can use them to do bad things!
If judges really want to do ban something dangerous they should ban the publication of information about re: CRISPR. It's more likely that someone will create a homegrown virus via CRISPR than kill lots of people with plastic guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's ban sharp plastic objects, because bad people can use them to do bad things!
That's not a bad idea [independent.co.uk]...
/sarc
We are on a merry-go-round (Score:5, Insightful)
Can machine-age law be applied fairly to rapidly developing technology? Is [printing a gun] the same as [manufacturing] it? Is he being strung out in a Kafkaesque nightmare as a warning to others? Some [government] officials concede that it's too late to keep [it] from spreading and say that intimidating distributors is the only way they can hope to deter code makers.
Those words were written in US News and World Report more than 23 years ago about the investigation into Phil Zimmerman for having given away PGP. Here is the real text (with the original words I changed in bold):
Can machine-age law be applied fairly to rapidly developing technology? Is putting software on a computer the same as exporting it? Is he being strung out in a Kafkaesque nightmare as a warning to others? Some intelligence officials concede that it's too late to keep cryptography from spreading and say that intimidating distributors is the only way they can hope to deter code makers.
I only had to change 8 words to make it a nearly perfect fit for the situation today.
I know it is fashionable to hate guns here, but the reality is that lots of bad people have guns and have a complete disregard for the law. So, ridiculous laws (we have plenty, just look at Washington DC and California) only serve to ensure that law abiding citizens cannot get guns. It is the same as it was for cryptography. Criminals were getting it and using anyway, only people who respect the law were actually harmed by the law.
As far as guns go, there are plenty of people who legitimately fear for their lives because of abusive relationships, living in bad neighborhoods, and countless other reasons. They need to be able to protect themselves because the police so often cannot or will not. There are lots of problems to fix, but more laws will not do the job when we so often fail to enforce the laws that we have now.
Re: (Score:2)
Those words were written in US News and World Report more than 23 years ago about the investigation into Phil Zimmerman for having given away PGP.
And...I forgot the link: https://web.archive.org/web/20130616165334/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/950403/archive_010975.htm [archive.org]
Speaking as somebody who would like to see (Score:2)
On a side note, there's plenty of people who legitimately fear for their lives, can't or won't handle a gun (or don't want one in the house with their children) but would like very much to keep their abusive ex spouses away from guns. Several of them get killed every year because it's damn near impossible to keep (perfectly legal)
Re: (Score:2)
I get where you are coming from. However, people intent on doing harm will do harm even without firearms. In just recent memory that I can recall there was a stabbing attack at a nursing home in Japan [wikipedia.org] (19 dead, 26 injured), a sword attack in Sweden [wikipedia.org] (3 dead not counting the attacker, 1 injured), and the truck attack at Ohio State [wikipedia.org] (11 to 13 injured, depending on how you count).
As far as firearms related incidents, there are plenty of incidents where the perpetrators should not have had access to firearms i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about we make it (relatively) legal to shoot others with a special projectile that is harmless at first, but causes death a couple days later... unless the shooter changes their mind in the interim (and administers a unique antidote, uses their private key to deactivate the explosive, etc.)? It'd work as a dead-man's switch so they wouldn't be 'out-gunned' despite not having instant stopping power, and would encourage people to reconcile instead of making permanent mistakes in a split second.
Re: (Score:2)
A firearm fires a small dense mass into the target, if target is a living being it exerts force of impact (that can kill on the spot if in the right location) and as the bullet penetrates the target
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, death is not the goal. However, giving a criminal two days to calm down and realize they're going to die unless they find and reconcile with their victim is a good motivation for them to turn themselves in. It's also a good motivation to not rape someone after they shoot you, since the law will have been modified so that they're not held responsible for your death; thus, your survival depends on not making them want you dead. The projectiles could have a code on them that can be connected to t
Activists Judges Legislating From the Bench (Score:2, Insightful)
At what point does Congress clean house? What law exactly was violated?
Replace "guns" with whatever you choose in the statement "There is a possibility of irreparable harm because of the way these guns can be made" and it ends up being true, such as alcohol, cars...you name it.
Futile and Unconstitutional Effort (Score:5, Insightful)
A federal court has issued a prior restraint on speech (it’s attempting to block the spread of information; it is not blocking the lawful home manufacture of firearms) that is already thoroughly and completely moot. The files are out. They’re all over the internet. They’ve been copied and reproduced. The judge’s order can’t change that fact.
Moreover, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation are hardly the only sources for online files or blueprints that enable a home manufacturer with a 3D printer to make a gun. I’m honestly unclear what the court is trying to accomplish here, aside from targeting the Trump administration and/or targeting a disfavored private company.
https://www.nationalreview.com... [nationalreview.com]
NB: Any gun that would be undetectable by a metal detector would be illegal under the aptly named Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they're trying to save face, doubling down on their idiocy and insisting they were in the right all along. It works for narcissists.
This is an BIG 1ST and 2ST amendments issue (Score:2)
This is an BIG 1ST and 2ST amendments issue.
Prior Restraint (Score:2)
or Why the Judge Is Wrong and Abusing His Position While Being So.
Tempest in a teapot. (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone with the use of their hands and a few tools from the local hardware store can make a "zip gun" from scrap metal. It doesn't take a genius to make such a gun, which will be just as effective as what comes out of a 3D printer. This is a well known and common criminal practice, for many years now. Sure, it's illegal but it happens all the time.
But now we have a new way to make a "zip gun": Instead of a few bucks worth of hand tools and some scrap we need a computer and a 3D printer, which costs a LOT more! And usually the sort of people who have such equipment probably have something better to do than making stupid 3D printed zip guns.
But this is so terribly scary that the media has to freak out and the gummint has to ban it. Lots of money, time and effort wasted over this non-problem. But the media and the politicians all have to keep us scared or we might start thinking for ourselves and they can't have that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"Author Harlan Ellison describes the zip guns gangs used in 1950s New York City as being made from tubing used in coffee percolators or automobile radio antennas, strapped to a block of wood for a handle. A rubber band powered the firing pin, which the shooter pulls back and releases to fire."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you have companies like https://www.80percentarms.com/ [80percentarms.com] selling AR-15 kits, 80% lowers and jigs that don't require any expert machinist knowledge and which can produce guns that are far superior to anything you can make even with the highest quality 3d printer currently available, I dont see anything to suggest 3d printing somehow makes it easier for people to get guns. (or for bad guys to get guns).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think things like https://www.80percentarms.com/... [80percentarms.com] is?
It looks like a bolt carrier assembly (including bolt) to me.
You can buy something like https://www.80percentarms.com/... [80percentarms.com] plus one of their jigs and make a working AR-15 from it just by using the jig to complete the remaining 20% of the 80% lower included in the kit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is already at least one 3D printer design that prints all but the circuitry and a few very basic metal parts for itself. The circuitry needed is an arudino or raspberry pi or similar micro-computer board a couple cheap electric motors available at any hobby/electronics shop. And the metal pieces are readily available at any hobby/electronics/hardware store.
In short you can already print more 3D printers. You
FOSSCAD has been available for 5 years (Score:2)
What a jerkoff waste of time (Score:2)
If they actually want to ban something meaningful, they shouldn't be going after plastic guns. They'd need to go after CNC metal gun parts [ghostgunner.net]. Those are just as untraceable, maybe moreso, and they're actually useful.
Since they aren't doing that, they're just trying to look like they're doing something. They aren't.
FUCK THE JUDGE, HAVE SOME NUCLEAR WEAPONRY PLANS (Score:3)
http://www.andrewkaram.com/pdf... [andrewkaram.com]
United States v Progressive, Inc. already handled this, with the United States settling and dropping its case, and The Progressive publishing how to make a thermonuclear weapon in WIDESPREAD PRINT November 1979.
All assholes in office need to realize we've got prior case precedent against this prior restraint. Then they need to go the fuck back to school.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, because releasing plans for building a nuclear bomb is totally the same thing as releasing plans for something someone can just hit print on their own (or their friend's) $500 printer.
To be clear, it's a stupid ruling in the face of free speech and given the rest of the gun culture, but not quite as stupid as your comparison.
Point being? (Score:2)
How do you square that with the first amendment (Score:3)
Is there any recognized exception to the first amendment that allows the government to prohibit the distribution of accurate information on the grounds that it's dangerous to use or misuse? If not, and they're asking for a new exception to the first amendment, the minimum we should expect is a precise description of the contours of the exception.
Re: (Score:2)
Going to ban books? (Score:2)
Books?
Software?
Math?
Crypto?
Re: (Score:2)
Your mom.
Five years too late? (Score:2)
Why is this such a big deal? (Score:2)
Its already legal to make guns in the US without a license as far as I can tell, you only need licenses if you are selling or distributing guns or are making things that are restricted such as full-auto guns.
Its also legal to post instructions online on how to make your own gun (again as long as they aren't for making things that are restricted).
Why is a 3d printed gun any more of a big deal than any of the other ways you can build your own gun? What makes a 3d printed gun any different to, say, buying an A
Re: (Score:2)
Just mold your completely legal lower, buy rest of the unregulated parts and assemble your AR's. All legal requiring no special tools other than the mold that comes with the kit.
Reasons why this ruling is junk (Score:4, Insightful)
The judge is ruling the government incompetent after the state department took years to reach this ruling. The judge cannot legislate from the bench. This ruling overrides the law in force and as determined at length.
The ruling violates the long standing legal precedent of the lawful construction of firearms by individuals. One can make a pistol, rifle, revolver, etc. legally for ones own use. Legislating a tool that facilitates the action of making ones one firearm seems a blatant violation of those rights.
The plastic firearms are already deemed a novelty. They don’t reliable fire even one shot. Yet there exist other methods to achieve the same results. I can form the same firearm design from bulk plastic. And it will be stronger. I can more easily create metal firearms more cheaply that are more reliable. $20 and a trip to a hardware store and I can craft a slam fire shotgun that requires less skill to fabricate.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution clearly says, “...shall not be infringed.” Not it’s a good idea not to, not maybe don’t infringe, not it’s ok to infringe in these circumstance. It says plainly “shall not be infringed.” So the government will have to show an overwhelming reason to infringe.
The case of PGP encryption mirrors the same legal process in it’s ITAR case. The government lost. They will lose this fight too.
The ruling amounts to prior restraint.
Activist judges are defiling our checks and balances by creating law from the bench. Impeachment of the judge is the remedy in all cases.
Information wants to be free! (Score:2)
Pissing into the wind. (Score:2)
1: First Amendment. WE WIN! If the Federal government has ruled on 1A protection, they're screwed.
2: On The Internet. WE WIN! Once something's on the Internet, it's pretty much FOREVER. Hell, the original DefCAD stuff has been knocking around since the site was originally taken down.
3: They're essentially trying to ban CAD files and 3D printers. That's just NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
I think it's time to accept that trying to criminalize everything just because criminals could use it for nefarious purposes
The reasonable part is already existing law (Score:5, Insightful)
> sounds quite reasonable. Surely a metal barrel or firing pin would fare better than a plastic one, right?
That's already existing federal law. It's called the Undetectable Firearms Act. Passing the same law again is theater for the uninformed.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... [cornell.edu]
(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.
> can't guess how the Republicans will feel about it. On the one hand "omg gubernment's tryin a take mah gunz"
I vote Republican (#nevertrump). Perhaps now that you see the "one metal part" thing has already been law for several years, you might be able to better guess how I feel about it. Most gun laws proposed by the left are jokes, silly theater pandering for those in their base who know nothing about guns, because they are scared of them. The "assault weapons" ban is a good example. Guess what an "assault weapon" is, how it's defined under the law? An assault weapon is legally defined as a rifle that looks scary. Seriously, it's based on mostly cosmetic features of the firearm. So I laugh and shake my head.
There is a trick the politician is trying to play with this bill, though. He says it requires "one metal part - because metal detectors". But we know that's ALREADY law, so we know he's full of shit there. Let's look more closely at the bill. Ah, "one metal part with a registered serial number". This shyster is trying to pass a national gun registration law, while pretending that it has something to do with metal detectors, but we caught him on his bullshit. We know one metal part is already required, he's just trying to create national gun registration while lying about it.
As a general rule, I oppose lying bastards passing laws doing one thing while pretending they are doing something different. If you can't even tell us honestly what you're proposing, my assumption is that I shouldn't support your bullshit lies. Also, history has shown us over and over again, in many countries, that registration is always followed by confiscation. The only reason the government ever wants a list of who all has guns is so they can later come and take them. That pattern has played out too many times to fall for it AGAIN.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He should change his name to Malarkey if he thinks these are downloadable guns, or that anyone has devised a plastic AR-15. That quote is so ignorant that he should recuse himself from any votes relating to firearms.
Re: (Score:3)
Ammo is a component of the concept Arms that we are entitled to keep and bear. The founding fathers knew this very well. The first shot of the Revolution at Lexingto