Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Printer Government The Internet United States

State Officials Ask Trump Administration To Pull 3D-Printed Gun Files Offline (theverge.com) 326

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Two dozen state attorneys general are asking the Trump administration to crack down on Defense Distributed's Defcad site for selling 3D-printed gun files. In a letter sent today, they urged the Justice Department and State Department to enforce rules against exporting weapons and making undetectable firearms. "If the federal government fails to act, these files will be distributed widely with potentially grave consequences for our national and domestic security," warns the letter. Attorneys general argue that Defcad is violating export control regulations and the Undetectable Firearms Act, which bans manufacturing, owning, and selling guns that don't trigger metal detectors. Anyone who downloads files could "automatically manufacture functional weapons that cannot be detected by a standard metal detector and, furthermore, are untraceable because they lack serial numbers," says the letter. "Continued dissemination of these files will increase the risk of terrorist attacks and gun violence across the United States." Defcad has well-established problems with ITAR, but the letter doesn't explain how it violates the Undetectable Firearms Act beyond asserting that files "enable the automatic manufacture of functional plastic weapons."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

State Officials Ask Trump Administration To Pull 3D-Printed Gun Files Offline

Comments Filter:
  • by saloomy ( 2817221 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @10:35PM (#59948146)
    its a 1st amendment issue. Beware of anyone trying to curtail anyone's speech. They are the fascists.
    • by raymorris ( 2726007 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @10:54PM (#59948196) Journal

      It's also quite misleading. The files are little more than a novelty; they aren't a reasonable way to acquire a weapon.

      First, these aren't "undetectable plastic guns". The chamber, barrel and barrel, at least, needs to be steel in order for it to be either a) safe for the user or b) reusable. All the plans on the site I steel parts, save one. How many people are going to spend that many hours to fire one poorly-aimed shot?

      Without even more steel parts, you end up with something similar to a civil war era musket - fire once, miss, then spend a few minutes reloading.

      If you wanted to make a single-shot gun like that, you can do it in a few minutes in the plumbing department of your local home center. You need a water pipe, a cap for the pipe, and a nail. He's over to aisle 12 for a hand drill to drill the hole. You'll be done before 3D printer boy has his printer warmed up and calibrated.

      If you want a single-use all plastic one you'll need to use hdpe pipe also known as PE. That's because PVC schedule 80 can shatter. Yeah I've made these - in my case 3" caliber guns to shoot fireworks 300' in the air, but it's the same principle.

      For extra fun, you can make your own gunpowder over in garden supply section. I've done that too.

      • by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @11:22PM (#59948264)

        For extra fun, you can make your own gunpowder over in garden supply section. I've done that too.

        Dude, are you growing exploding flowers in your garden?

      • The chamber, barrel and barrel, at least, needs to be steel in order for it to be either a) safe for the user or b) reusable

        Why place arbitrary restrictions on your argument? A gun ceases being a gun simply because it can only be fired once?

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        They are probably less worried about someone printing a practical gun today and more worried about where this is heading. Metal 3D printers already exist and will soon be getting popular with consumers.

        2D scanners and printers and photo editing packages already have code in them to stop you using them for money forgery. Try scanning a bank note and opening the resultant image in Photoshop. Colour laser printers put almost invisible yellow dots on your print outs so they can be tracked back to you too.

        And ev

        • by i.r.id10t ( 595143 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @06:45AM (#59949366)

          And even if the US decides that printing guns is legal

          Except making your own gun is legal already, and has never been illegal. The only legal concern is avoiding NFA laws (ie, machine guns, short barrel rifles, etc)

          The hoplophobes are just freaking out because "oooh, computers and 3d printing".

          And yes, there are many more effective ways to get more effective firearms for those who are intent on doing bad things than firing up a 3d printer and running off a few copies of a proof-of-concept....

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by SirAstral ( 1349985 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @10:57PM (#59948202)

      Both... it is an issue for BOTH amendments.

      Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech and the right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. Any activity that encroaches upon either of these is a violation of them.

      The moment you allow government to create laws that defeat constitutionally declared rights is the same moment you just said the entire constitution is worthless. The Constitution is a document that outlines what power the government has and what power it does not have. When it is allowed to take power it does not have, it has become the same as a cheating spouse and the spouse that has been cheated upon has the right to void that contract. There is a reason why people are supposed to get off scott free when the government denies someone their rights. It's no longer about guilty or innocent... its about government literally abdicating their authority and losing the power to continue prosecution, search, and or seizure of said persons or things.

      • Still, Undetectable Firearms Act has not been successfully challenged, so it would seem the world doesn't work the way you think it should.
        • And it's an irrelevant claim in this case because none of the designs are metal free. They all contain sufficient Iron or steel to be detected with ease.
        • by lgw ( 121541 )

          The Second Amendment could not be more clear, No where does the Constitution or its Amendments say "unless we're scared". No where "unless it's made of plastic". The fact that courts have ruled wrongly on this is not an excuse; it's a reason to replace judges until the clear language of the constitution once again applies.

          The Constitution exists to restrict the power of our government over us. Of course that government will try to weasel out of those restrictions at every chance. Governments what more

          • The Second Amendment could not be more clear,

            The 2nd Amendment is not clear. The inappropriate use of a comma would upset many middle school English teachers.

            Sawed-off shotguns are banned because they are not militia weapons, and the courts have upheld that ban. Plastic guns aren't militia weapons either, so a ban is likely to be upheld there as well.

            Banning these 3D weapons is silly nonetheless because they are much more likely to result in an "own goal" than harm to an innocent person.

            • by lgw ( 121541 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @02:07AM (#59948764) Journal

              The 2nd Amendment is not clear. The inappropriate use of a comma would upset many middle school English teachers.

              The comma is all-important, as it separates the actual rule from the preface explaining why the Founding Fathers thought this was important. You would only call that comma "inappropriate" if you were deliberately trying to misconstrue the rule to only apply to militias.

              The rule limiting the power of the government:

              the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed .

              There's no "unless" there. Shall not be infringed. Plain and simple. There's also the preface:

              A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

              Which makes it clear this isn't just about self-defense, or protecting one's home (these rights were already entrenched in British common law and hardly needed to be written here), it's talking about the right to own military weaponry, including cannon, because you also need to form a militia, not just defend your home. And, yes, most cannon was privately owned up until the 20th century, and donated to any war effort as needed.

              • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                So do you consider current restrictions on baring arms to be unconstitutional?

                There are restrictions on what kinds of arms you can own, they all went through the supreme court so are considered legal.

                • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                  • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                    That doesn't account for restrictions on things like WMD though, does it? I mean worrying that your neighbour might have a mental health crisis and murder you with a gun is one thing, but I think even most 1A advocates would be alarmed if their neighbour started manufacturing anthrax or building a small tactical nuclear weapon.

                    I'm trying to understand if you place any limits on it at all, e.g. would owning a ground to air missile launcher and living near an airport be protected or is there some point in-bet

              • A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

                Which makes it clear this isn't just about self-defense, or protecting one's home (these rights were already entrenched in British common law and hardly needed to be written here), it's talking about the right to own military weaponry, including cannon, because you also need to form a militia, not just defend your home. And, yes, most cannon was privately owned up until the 20th century, and donated to any war effort as needed.

                And here you go entirely off the rails and spew unsupported and untrue notions. Precisely none of what you are misinterpreting here, typical of NRA propaganda, is remotely true.

                The 2nd Amendment does not concern military, such as the US Army, in the slightest bit. Constitutional Militia [cornell.edu] is not US military, and entirely unrelated and separate from the US military. The Constitution is not internally redundant, and the raising of an army is discussed, for instance, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12.

                The F

                • The beauty of the Amendment process is that even if an overwhelming majority of people and politicians want to take away an American freedom... it still can't happen unless those people and politicians are evenly distributed throughout the country.

            • by msauve ( 701917 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @06:59AM (#59949394)
              "Sawed-off shotguns are banned because they are not militia weapons,"

              Miller was poorly decided (and worse cited) - there was literally no representation for the defense at court. Short barreled shotguns were in fact used in the military, which the prosecution deliberately didn't mention. The court didn't say they weren't military weapons, they said that no facts were presented indicating they were - "it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment". Finally, if military use is the deciding factory, we should all be able to have automatic rifles and (hand held) rocket launchers.
          • It could be a lot more clear. The language of that thing is a mess and interpretations have varied widely.
          • by msauve ( 701917 )
            "The Constitution exists to restrict the power of our government over us."

            That's just what they want you to think. Fact is, it provides only specific, limited powers to the government. It is prescriptive, not restrictive. All others powers belong to the states and the people. 2A or no, the Constitution simply doesn't give the Feds any power with which they can control firearms.
      • It's 100% legal to make your own weapons as long as you are legally allowed to buy one... So why should it be frowned upon to make a crappy 3d printed gun when you can just make a good metal one with a little machining? Worst case, the 3d printed guns blow up in some idiots face and problem solved if you are looking for the death of the person making the gun. Only way to make a good worthwhile gun with 3d printing would be metal printing with laser sintering or something, and it's waaay cheaper just to b

        • I own a CNC mill and lathe. I also own a 3D printer.

          I spent hundreds of hours learning how to use the mill and lathe. Most "real" machinists would consider me an intermediate learner. I may be able to make a lower receiver. No way could I make a rifled barrel.

          Learning to make parts on the 3D printer took about 30 seconds. Just push the button.

          Comparing machining to 3D-printing is silly. The skillsets are worlds apart.

          • And you can make a zip gun with no machining experience. No need to make a barrel as you can buy that, same and most parts of a gun. Only the receiver has a serial, that's the part you make. Buying 80% receivers and you can finish one with a dremel if careful, don't even need a cnc to make it perfect. But again, all of this is legal for most Americans, so it's moot.

    • by khchung ( 462899 )

      its a 1st amendment issue. Beware of anyone trying to curtail anyone's speech. They are the fascists.

      Exactly. We can cue all the arguments that had been thrown around when export of encryption was banned.

      E.g. if you take the forbidden file, XOR it will a random file (1) of the same length, you get another file (2) that is indistinguishable from random. Now you post file (1) and (2) to two separate sites. Which site is breaking the law?

      E.g. If the file can be compressed to just three (or ten, or twenty) words, how are you going to stop people from memorizing it and saying it out loud everywhere?

      • E.g. If the file can be compressed to just three (or ten, or twenty) words, how are you going to stop people from memorizing it and saying it out loud everywhere?

        Or encoded within some popular images? Depending on the complexity of the files needed the required data could be hidden into the noise of an image, or a series of images. Perhaps hide it in a sound file, video, an expansion pack for a game, whatever that is going to be an inherently large file and tolerant of some noise or errors. Put the wanted data in the file and spread it around as best you can to people, people that may or may not know the files contains plans for 3D printable objects and how to ex

    • its a 1st amendment issue. Beware of anyone trying to curtail anyone's speech. They are the fascists.

      Yeah, it's not the government's job to regulate things which could potentially explode in the user's face and kill them. /s

    • its a 1st amendment issue. Beware of anyone trying to curtail anyone's speech. They are the fascists.

      Nothing about this is related to any Amendment. Not the 1st or the 2nd. This is nothing more than a common sense litmus test, with those asking confirming just how much they lack.

      In a nutshell, two dozen state officials want to remove information already widely disseminated on the internet. In other words, the actual request here, is to put the genie back in the bottle.

      Once you realize just how pointless and impossible that request really is, "fascist" arguments become as irrelevant as the idiots asking

  • Streisand effect (Score:4, Informative)

    by NynexNinja ( 379583 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @10:57PM (#59948200)

    These files have been available for years now... Its pretty much Streisand effect now

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SirAstral ( 1349985 )

      Yea, not really the same thing here. The objective is not concerned about how many people have it. The objective is just to create more excuses and give law enforcement more powers to label people as criminals... because in order for law enforcement to go after them... the very act of possessing and distributing these materials becomes illegal, which is in direct contravention of our rights.

    • Yep, If Cody's group is forced to take them down, those of us who have copies will ensure they are widely shared.
    • These files have been available for years now... Its pretty much Streisand effect now

      I think this is a NRA plot to make Americans think republicans will take their guns away so that more guns get sold. The entire industry is hilarious in its peaks and troughs. Best sales ever while Obama was president, and they almost went belly up when Trump was running the show because "guns were safe and those evil 2nd Amendment hating dems are not in the office". Then along comes Corona and while the entire world is suffering, guns are sold out everywhere, presumably because people feel the need to prac

  • by Indy1 ( 99447 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @11:20PM (#59948258)

    safely hosted in Switzerland...

    https://3dgun.btfh.net/ [btfh.net]

  • Beating a dead horse (Score:4, Informative)

    by gavron ( 1300111 ) on Tuesday April 14, 2020 @11:45PM (#59948336)

    Not only are these files YEARS out in the public (as other posters have said)... but even if they weren't they aren't hard to create.

    3D printers aren't the problem. They're a tool.
    3D schematics aren't the problem. They are the software that feeds the tool.
    3D users aren't the problem. They are the people who operate the machine.
    People who use firearms legally are not the problem. We call them "people."

    It's people who use firearms ILLEGALLY that are the problem. We call them "killers" or "shooters" or "murderers".
    This attempt at silencing free speech does nothing to stop them. It only seeks to stop the existence of "files."

    These people wanting free speech stifled so CAD files are unavailable and the freedom to create them is stifled
    -- fuck them.

    E

    • Since a 3d printed gun has never been used in a crime, they should encourage them.
  • by dohzer ( 867770 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @12:16AM (#59948422)

    Great to see there hasn't been a school shooting lately. Keep up the good work!

  • banning 3d printed guns will work just as well as banning counterfeit money.

  • In the middle of heavy lockdowns, the timing is hard to ignore, even though these things are pretty much useless.

    • In the middle of heavy lockdowns, the timing is hard to ignore, even though these things are pretty much useless.

      When I can break a stick off a tree and whittle it into a more effective weapon than any homegrown 3D "gun", it says a lot about the entire legal argument here. The actual risk needs to be looked at (that whole "useless" factor), because guns are designed to perform a single function. If the risk is low enough, then so is the justification to raise legal arguments. In other words, this "problem" is actually rather easy to ignore.

      Besides, we're not going to ban or control 3D printers or designs any more

  • by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @04:48AM (#59949150)

    He needs Barbara Streisand to help.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @07:39AM (#59949516)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by TVmisGuided ( 151197 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .pmuj.nala.> on Wednesday April 15, 2020 @08:45AM (#59949776) Homepage

    ...there goes the horse a-trottin' across the pasture. I wonder if I can get the barn door to close.

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Working...