Slashdot Mirror
You Can't Print a Gun If You Have No 3D Printer
FatLittleMonkey writes "You may recall Cody Wilson's project to create a 3D printed gun, mentioned previously on Slashdot. Well, the Defense Distributed project has suffered a decidedly non-technical setback, with printer manufacturer Stratasys revoking the lease and repossessing the printer (presumably prying it from plastic models of Cory's cold dead hands). According to New Scientist, the manufacturer cited his lack of a federal firearms manufacturer's license as their reason for the repossession, adding that it does not knowingly allow its printers to be used for illegal purposes." Homemade firearms are not (in the U.S.) per se illegal on a federal basis, though states have varying degrees of regulation. It would be helpful if anyone more conversant with firearms law than me can point out what law or laws this project might be breaking.
if you're going to print gray-area items, print them quietly, and announce after your beta is complete.
What's next, refusing to sell printers to people because their for / against gay marriage? This is a tool and he was using it for legal purposes. What the manufacturer did was no different than any other kind of censorship. Deplorable.
Hmmm.... reminiscent of the desire to suppress printing presses in order to inhibit revolutionary movements.
He broke no law AFAIK. He created a portion of the gun that is regulated in commercial export/sale, not manufacture. He didn't even create the full gun with the printer, and his "gun" likely wasn't reliable enough to be considered dangerous to someone it's aiming at.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
Even toy guns?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
No, you don't. You only need a license if you are manufacturing arms FOR SALE. People make homemade guns for fun all the time.
False:
Q: Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle?
With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency.
[18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general.html#gca-manufacturing
You Can't Print a Gun If You Have No 3D Printer, How Can You Print a Gun If You Have No 3D Printer. You, Yes You Behind The Bike Shed, Stand Still Laddie!
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
How is a 3D printer any different than a lathe, grinder or a milling machine?
If you read between the lines of Stratasys' statement, the company's president clearly says:
"For the love of god please don't give us this kind of press. If we don't shut this down now I'm going to have Homeland Security on, over and in my ass. Don't ever use gun and printed in the same sentence again. My hands are too delicate for jail. Why are you doing this to me?"
It's against federal law to make a machine gun. In Tennessee, as long as he doesn't break any federal laws, he can do whatever he wants without the federal license, but he cannot he doesn't sell what he produces. If he keeps it personally, he isn't even required to put a serial number on the receiver. If he wants to sell it at a later time, however, he's required put a serial on it, and he also may invoke the wrath of the ATF. It's said that you can sell a reasonable number of homemade firearms per year without requiring the manufacturer's license, but I believe that reasonable number is arbitrarily set by the ATF agents.
Disclaimer: I've never made my own firearm, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't sell it; between the risk of federal prison and liability if it blows up, if I had to get rid of the thing, it would be destroyed.
No you don't.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html#commercial-parts-assembly
Q: Is it legal to assemble a firearm from commercially available parts kits that can be purchased via internet or shotgun news?
For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.
The first thing you should print when you get a 3d printer, is another 3d printer.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If you are leasing a color copier or press. They will pull the copier if your using it to print counterfet money. This is not censorship at all.
Did he get it to print another printer ? :-)
Pity printers are not quite up to that yet but, when they are, I wonder what devastation it would cause to manufacturing industries ? What if you could print yourself a new toilet, kitchen appliance, ... would people buy them from shops ? It depends on the costs of printing to the costs of buying a made item from the shop. Some items are never going to be printable, eg: CPUs and items requiring high strength (famous last words).
When all 3d printers are outlawed, only outlaws won't care because they will still have ready access to guns through illicit channels
...or something to that effect
Shameless plug for my photos on Flickr
They're only trying to manufacture the lower receiver; everything else (barrel, bolt, chamber, whatever) is just a "gun part" that you can buy off the Internet or whatever easily. The lower receiver is the part that counts as the "gun". (Some part has to, in order to settle Theseus' paradox.) On an AR-15, this part is subject to very little stress and could conceivably be made of a sturdy plastic.
If you think this is bad, wait until someone successfully prints an album.
From the ATF FAQ (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general.html#gca-manufacturing): Q: Does the GCA [Gun Control Act] prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle? [A:] With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency. [18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]. NOTE BY POSTER: But sure as hell wouldn't do it.
Oh the internet armchair libertarian brigade. Even when it's private enterprise infringing someone's rights, they rant about the government.
The "we don't have a license" angle is a diversion. This is all about Stratasys PR department not wanting a product they market to creative types to be linked in the public mind with the sort of firearms neckbeards that print AR lowers in their garages.
0 1 - just my two bits
They're only trying to manufacture the lower receiver; everything else (barrel, bolt, chamber, whatever) is just a "gun part" that you can buy off the Internet or whatever easily.
Assuming you're talking about the contest, that is incorrect - the idea is to have a 100% printed gun that can fire at least 1 round of .22 caliber ammo without catastrophic failure.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
But I could get a 3D printer if I had a gun. What a farking quandary!
In space no-one can hear your vuvuzela.
This only applies to NFA firearms, which are machine guns or short barreled shotguns.
âoeIn theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." â Albert Einstein
I doubt very much this is any move against Cody Wilson on a censorship/anti-gunownership level. Far more likely Stratasys went "holy crap someone could sue the living daylights out of us for making guns without a license"
Think about how litigation happy we are in the US - imagine someone using a 3D printer to print something dangerous, and getting hurt. Especially imagine if it's a little kid. It doesn't matter that the printer manufacturer in a logical, sane world is clearly not responsible - they'd be utterly destroyed in the current court climate. This probably hit Stratasys in the face and their legal team said "FULL STOP GUYS"
Yea, like how every time someone gets shot and killed during a criminal action, another gun manufacturer goes under due to being sued as an accessory to the crime.
Or, you know, you're obviously clueless, and should avoid speaking on topics you know nothing about.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Couldn't these guys have waited just a few years, until 3D printing is popular and ubiquitous? Instead, they've handed the feds a silver-platter excuse to preemptively regulate the hell of it while it's still a novelty item.
Thanks, assholes. You've destroyed a world-changing technology because you just couldn't wait one more second to own shitty, worthless plastic guns. Great job.
And it will actually work.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I believe the world has enough Led Zepplin without people printing Vinyl Stairways to Heaven.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Even toy guns?
If it meets the requirements to be considered a firearm, then yes. Use something non-explosive (compressed gas) or don't fire a projectile and you won't run afoul of the authorities.
The real answer is... it's complicated. In some States you can make your own firearms with some limitations- they can't be distributed at all, personal use only, usually you can't use them for licensed sporting activities like Hunting, can't be a machine gun or military-grade weaponry, and stuff like that. Regardless of what you're doing, if you announce it publicly then you should expect a visit from the ATF and they'll explain the rules to you in precise detail. But possibly not quite as nicely.
You also need the right materials. Not just anything can be a gun barrel. I'm not a fan of bans, but perhaps the best compromise in this situation is to ban the 3D printable materials that could be formed into guns, not the printers, plans, and other 3D printable materials.
They weren't printing gun barrels, plus your plan would outrule aluminum, steel, iron, carbon, any hard plastics and so on. Guess how well that would fly?
Their repossession is probably illegal, or contract breach anyway. At least done under "false claims / terms."
Yeah, I suspect the same thing. Maybe he also got his money back for the unused term of the lease. I expect that might be legal.
What I find amusing and also quite irritating is the barely suppressed gleeful tone of the article. It's clear where the article writer's sentiment lies.
The lesson here is that you should own your own stuff. No DRM, no Apple overlord deciding what you should and shouldn't be able to install, no leases, even if the lease term is a single payment for a lease in perpetuity. You should own it, it should be yours to do exactly and precisely what you want with.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I never understood the hoopla about the whole gun thing... the ammo is the part that does the actual launching of the bullet, the gun is just to hold the ammo+bullet together while they're being fired.
It's kinda like putting serial numbers on hypodermic needles and making heroin legal enough to sell at Walmart.
Put simply, it's not nearly that simple. There are all kinds of strange laws which pile on top of this one law alone, and there are laws in each State which often further restrict your ability to make a firearm. Then you have to consider local ordinances- it may be legal to make a particular gun, but not if you do it within city limits, for example. Or maybe you are free to make them, but you have to take peculiar "safety" precautions... such as obtaining a hard-to-get permit from the authorities.
The best answer is that you're better off carefully examining the definition of a firearm and make something which doesn't fall under the same legal framework as a "real gun". You can do some pretty fun things with compressed gasses, for example. Magnets are also neat, if you know how they fucking work. (If you don't then you've probably spent your homework time learning to apply ghoulish facepaint instead)
Many EULA's state you can't use the product or service or whatever for terrorism and other shit. Is printing a gun falls under "terrorism and other shit" it's totally a good reason to end the LEASE contract and has nothing to do with censorship.
You may quote me, but not if doing so could, in any way, directly or indirectly, do any harm to, but not limited to, others.
Privacy is terrorism.
You can buy all the machine tools and heat treat ovens you need, 2nd hand, and make your own real guns.
Forget the RP printers...or if you want to play, just have an RP job shop make your parts.
I hope you are aware that with a printing press you publish information
And it is only because of personal gun ownership you are allowed to do that and distribute it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It would fly as well as a suggestion by someone who didn't bother to RTFA. ;-)
Absurdism. One does not need a 3D Printer to make a gun to begin with. A few hand tools and you can do it just fine out of metals or plastics. This story just gets headlines because of the "new tech" rather than the real issues.
perhaps the best compromise in this situation is to ban the 3D printable materials that could be formed into guns, not the printers, plans, and other 3D printable materials.
Given all of the other uses for such materials, like car parts, shelving, tables, etc. I can't see that banning every possibly strong material is a good compromise at all, it limits whole classes of things (not just guns) from being made with 3D printers.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I am a lawyer and a firearms enthusiast, and know this area of law very well.
As posted above, it is legal to make your own AR-15 receiver for personal use under federal law without a license. To clarify the post above, an AR-15 receiver is not an NFA item that would required tax and registration unless, after manufacture, it is going to be configured as a short-barreled rifle, or made into a machine gun (with a grandfathered select-fire sear). Otherwise, throw any upper receiver (with a 16" or longer barrel) and standard semi-automatic trigger group on it and you're good to go (neither of which are regulated parts federally, and not in most states).
State law is another matter, but in most states unregulated. As others pointed out, if the receiver is being produced for sale, then under federal it is illegal to make it without first becoming a federally licensed manufacturer (which is not particularly difficult).
The wired.com article is absolutely wrong in its "innuendo" (for lack of a better word) that some law was broken.
By way of example, it is perfectly legal to order a so-called "80% receiver" and finish the milling process at home yourself with nothing more than a drill press. Google "80% receiver" and you'll find many sellers of such receivers, complete with ATF letters online verifying the legality of the process (again, so long as the receiver is for personal use).
It seems to me that the young man may very well have a law suit against the manufacturer of the 3d printer for breach of the lease agreement, and possibly defamation, assuming a) he did not intend to sell his receiver(s) and b) did not possess a short-barreled (16") AR-15 upper receiver.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution clearly specifies that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is clearly an "infringement" on the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for there to be Federal limits on the right to manufacture Arms. Since unconstitutional legislation is not law, there is no law against manufacture of Arms. The real question is: What to do about an outlaw government?
Seastead this.
Depends. Perhaps it is possible to create a "fire once" arm that will sort of fire a .22 round, and fail, but not in a way that'll harm the shooter. Probably takes some wacky design choices... like adding a 10cm printed plastic shield behind the hammer to deflect debris.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I certainly recall thinking to myself: "No way! This is about to open some mighty floodgates of industry regulation" and generally cause a category 4 sh*tstorm event by upsetting those who have suddenly been forced to think through the many consequences of such printing devices being made widely available to the general public without oversight.
It would only seem normal that whoever is in charge of domestic security would want to know all about this immediately, here and now. From an uniformed bystander's perspective (such as myself), investigating any similar scenario would appear to precisely be the very essence of their job description.
Given the current climate of constant knee-jerk hysteria as well as the über-paranoid security measures enacted on just about everything else, how can anyone even be surprised by this?
The "I have a right to have a gun" line wears a little thin for those of us who have spent our summer nights in a city ED trying to save a 17 year old kid who's only mistake was wearing the wrong color while someone else drove by looking for vengence and with easy access to a (conventionally manufactured) gun. We're killiing our children and one more way to make a gun is one more who can die.
http://www.stratasys.com/Privacy/Terms-and-Conditions.aspx
4. MAINTENANCE USE AND LOCATION. Lessee ... shall comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, requirements (from the manufacturer or otherwise) and rules with the respect to the ... operation of the Equipment
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (18 USC 922(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;
A Security Exemplar is a 3.7 ounce hunk of stainless steel in the shape of whatever gun you want to test, for the purposes of calibrating metal detectors.
(This bill was passed in 1988, with a ten year sunset; it was not renewed in 1998, but WAS renewed in 2003, also with a 10-year sunset. I imagine the actions of Cody Wilson will make it an absolute certainty that it will get renewed in 2013.)
In other words, if you "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer" a gun (let's say, one made of printed thermoplastic) which isn't as detectable by a metal detector as a few ounces of stainless steel of the same shape, you are violating this law. It doesn't look like DESIGNING such a gun is illegal per se - but you don't do design work on a 3-d printer, you manufacture, possess, etc. With a federal firearms manufacturer's license, though, or a contract from one, it IS legal to design a weapon to see if it meets the specs of the law - although this might be an exception, as no such weapon could comply with the law.
If Distributed Defense succeeds, they are liable for as much as five years in jail. If they fail... well, I don't know if "designing and prototyping" counts as "manufacturing". Actually, no, it doesn't - interestingly, the law doesn't contemplate "hobbyists designing a new type of weapons technology." So they're arguably not engaged in business (the law requires profiting from the sale or distribution) which means they're not manufacturing. So, if you're willing to put your freedom on the line, it MAY be legal to design and prototype a highly illegal gun. In the end, I think that Stratasys did Wilson a HUGE favor by forcing him to get his legal ducks in order before he moved forward with this.
Haha, you asked /. Everyone's an expert on everything. Just ask them.
As a lawyer, have you ever seen a case where law enforcement didn't like someone's activities, were unable to prosecute him for those activities, but found another violation to prosecute? Like charging Capone with tax evasion?
It's my impression that there are so many laws that unless we are bedridden we're probably all doing (or neglecting) something a zealous prosecutor could nail us for.
Which basically could make pissing off the authorities a criminal offense.
I hope I'm mistaken. Please show me I am.
The US is different than Canada. The most you'll need is a driver's license - mostly for age verification - and you can pick up ammo at any local sporting goods store. I can drop by a hunting store and get 25lbs of black powder with just a drivers license (though they record who you are in that case).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
There's only a reasonable suit against the mfr if the mfr did a poor job of writing up the lease. Almost all of the leased equipment I used to have had a clause that let the lessor terminate the lease for any reason, with the balance of payments forfeited, etc, etc, no claims for i/c damage, loss of business, etc.etc. for about a page and a half.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I suspect if you check the lease he signed, there is a clause allowing them to terminate the lease at any time at their convenience. If he didn't want that clause, he should have negotiated it out. Simple business practice - capitalism and free market at it's heart. The lessor decided that his business was served by not serving this person. Done. I'd think all the libertarians would be happy about this.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Forget the RP printers...or if you want to play, just have an RP job shop make your parts.
Yeah, but that wouldn't be cool and hip.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
This is all about Stratasys PR department not wanting a product they market to creative types to be linked in the public mind with ... firearms.
Mod parent up. The "illegal" angle here is being waayyyy over-discussed, but it's really just an excuse for good PR.
It's a good legal move too. Whenever a radically new technology becomes mainstream enough to enter the public consciousness, the "bad" uses are discovered and fretted about very early on. (Remember this? It almost kept me off the internet completely in high school.) Too much public outcry early on might result in some preemptive legislation for the 3D printer industry, and I imagine Stratasys would like to avoid that.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
I think the idea wasn't just to print a gun, but to test the limits of a particular emergent technology and how it can be applied to the specific domain.
If the goal was just to get guns, there are shops all over the place.
I hear they're the experts on gun laws in the US.
Some useful links garnered from their FAQ:
p.s., I am not a lawyer. I'm just giving google advice, not legal advice.
That hasn't worked out very well for a few people in my corner of the world lately. The cops have just shot them based on the vehicle's use as a deadly weapon. And I doubt the law would take issue with a private citizen practicing self defense either.
Have gnu, will travel.
However legality is only a small part of being able to *actually* to do something. In any country whatever you do is going to be scrutinized based on it's popularity first and foremost. With the authorities, the neighbors, the population, job, friends and family. And many of those can easily stop you from doing something, especially if they have wide support. Even if *they* are breaking the law. It's called a free society, and the paper law is only a small part of it. We take advantage of it all the time. Many things are illegal on paper, but so immensely popular, nobody can really stop it. The gray area is very big, really.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Ugh. find the word "laws", which apparently is what you're looking at. Look three words to the right. All they need to do is inform them of the requirement that they not "whatever" and the lease is broken.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Considering the number of weapons in the US, you do not need to bother, you can certainly buy about anything you might want on the white or grey market...
It is probably useless now to seriously try to reduce the numbers of gun in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
What you might want to do it to look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
And think about education and social contracts...
French people have about 2.5 less guns per capita compared with the US, they have comparable suicide rates (sometimes red wine is not enough), but only 10% ot the murder rate.
In other words a gun in France is 4 time less liable to kill somebody than in the US....
Or put in another form, american culture and social makeup explains approx 30 000 dead people per year, the fact that it is gun related is not the main factor.
You can have any opinion you want about the rights of man and you can even have those put into the Constitution where they have the effect of law. The only problem is, you have to amend the Constitution to do that and that's just too inconvenient for you. So, instead, you support lawlessness.
Seastead this.
If you make printing guns criminal only criminals will have printers...
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
If I lend you my gun and I find out you shot somebody with it, it is my moral responsibility to take it away from you (and report you, etc). Likewise, if I lend you my 3d printer and I find out you have been making illegal/unregistered firearms with it, the same responsibility applies
Plastics do.
That's excellent info, thanks. I think what you're telling me is that this isn't something that would piss off any authorities.
But what's my "straw man"? As I understand the fallacy, it takes an opponent's words, exaggerates or mischaracterizes their position, then attacks the exaggeration.
I didn't attempt to attack anyone's position, I was just asking a question.
Such as the Klan, la Cosa Nostra, Crips, Bloods, MS-13, like-minded folk who decide they don't other like-minded folk... Perfect: a clause that makes everything else effing meaningless.
So, lemme get this straight....
If I go out into the woods, find a good dead branch to whittle, and carve out the major components of a gun, that's somehow illegal?
And the manufacturer of my whittling knife can take my knife away? Or the government can ban dead branches?
And before you all say "impossible", Mythbusters built a cannon entirely out of wood, so, it is theoretically possible, but possibly not practical -- but that's not the point -- if it becomes functional, it's a gun.
At what point does it stop being "whittling" and become "illegal manufacture of firearms"? This is exactly the case that will be argued when this goes to trial, since someone will eventually sue.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I agree, "make sexbots, not war!"
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
So who authorized Stratasys as a law enforcement agency anyway?
Has it finally happened is it now official corporations run the world and not people anymore?
Since he wasn't commercially selling any of these prints, and only providing the blueprints, he wasn't breaking the law. You can legally build a firearm in your home or garage and not serial number it, or require a FFL as long as you don't sell the firearm, with this case the receiver being the firearm.
People have been building AK's for years this way, using "parts kits," which are decommissioned rifles with receivers removed or cut in half. Those parts not being legal firearms, can then be reassembled as long as a certain percentage of the parts are US made. So, bend and temper your own sheet steel receiver, drop in a tapco g1 or g2 trigger group, and use another US part here and there, and you have a 100% legal to own firearm not registered with the government.
It's no different here, and the 3D printer company that took it's device away is obviously playing politics and protecting it's own business here, rather than actually following a law.
Take a look at Switzerland. They have amoung the highest amount of firearms per person but the lowest gun crime rate.
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
Firearms laws all have the same basic goal. Oppress the poor.
Printing guns, though illegal in some places is the ultimate expression of freedom. And makes totalitarian bosses all red, and spitting with anger that they can't control it.
When it is widespread, it will also serve to make people more polite to each other.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
And unless USA is different than Canada somehow, you also need a license (FAC up here) to purchase ammunition anyways.
You don't need any sort of license to purchase ammo in the USA, you just walk into the nearest Walmart. Or order it online and have it shipped to your door.
You can just as easily argue that Stratasys should have done their due dilligence and consulted with a legal expert on US firearms law, which would have clearly led them to the conclusion that what was being done was LEGAL, making any revocation of the lease at that point a premeditated act in bad faith.
Someone's been reading a little too much Terry Goodkind...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
"Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a peoples' militia to defend their country. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world."
French people have about 2.5 times less guns per capita compared with the US
FTFY...For a second, I was terrified that we in the US actually had more than 2.5 guns per person! Thankfully, you provided a link.
Stratasys would be the number 1 company to benefit from regulation.
it's kinda hard to start regulating stepper motors though.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Next thing you know they'll be telling us we can't use gray goo to make amorphous Terminator robots...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I'm certainly all for the right to keep and bear arms, but the US is by far the most armed country in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
You also need the right materials. Not just anything can be a gun barrel. I'm not a fan of bans, but perhaps the best compromise in this situation is to ban the 3D printable materials that could be formed into guns, not the printers, plans, and other 3D printable materials.
I'm pretty sure that the "3D printable materials that could be formed into guns" have many other uses outside of firearms.
If you can't convince them, convict them.
Reading these comments makes me dispair about basic understanding of the law and government's role in preventing "censorship" by a private corporation.
Question: Is a company engaging in censorship somehow violating the constitution or the law?
Answer: No. The Constituton limits the governments' actions. It is designed to protect the people from government infringement of certain delineated rights. There is nothing in the Constitution or federal law that prevents private corporations from expressing an opinion about the desirable use of their own products. Government may regulate certain behaviors (i.e., discrimination in hiring or health and safety), but is prohibited from picking winners and losers based on political belief. Corporations are subject to no such restrictions.
Question: Is it "illegal" for a company to revoke a lease because the lessee is using the lessor's product in a manner that the lessor thinks is disagreeable?
Answer: No. The lessor is a private company with rights to its own personal political positions and beliefs. There is nothing "illegal" about the company enforcing its contractual rights because it dislikes the use its product is being put to by this particular lessee. (Again, leaving aside certain lawful restrictions on a company's conduct). Instead, it is the terms of the lease that will govern the relationship between the parties.
Question: Is it legal for a lease to differentiate between political views?
Answer: It's very much up to the individual parties to craft a contract that governs the lessee's and lessor's rights. The point is that the parties have complete freedom to arrange the lease as they see fit. In fact, it is common for a lessor to include very broad re-take rights into the contract. If the lessee believes that the lessor has repossessed the equipment in violation of the contract, then he or she has rights under contract law, and the appropriate remedy is to sue (or not agree to the lease to begin with).
Question: Even if we assume it is legal to print a gun under federal law, the law of all fifty states and every local jurisdiction, does the legality/non-legality affect the rights of the lessor to repossess the printer under the lease?
Answer: No. The legality of the finished product has no bearing on the contractual rights of the parties to enforce the conditions of the lease.
Question: Does the 3-D printer manufacturer have legitimate legal concerns, even if the printed guns were unambiguously legal?
Answer: Absolutely. The manufacturer could easily be the target of a law suit for negligence on the part of a victim of the printed gun. The civil liability claims could be enormous. Even the potential threat of such litigation could raise his insurance premiums or cause existing insurers to rescind their coverage. Remember -- in America, each party typical pays its own legal costs. A law suit does not have much merit to bankrupt a small business. And here, the manufacturer was on actual notice that the lessee wanted to make a gun, which would help any plaintiff in establishing that the manufacturer knew or should have known that his product could be used to harm people.
The manufacturer could also be subject to some far-fetched legal theory advanced by a prosecutor in some random jurisdiction. Or he could find his product subject to import/export restrictions in the US or other jurisdictions.
PS - It's not clear to me what the law says on whether printing guns is legal. I'm a lawyer, and spent maybe 10 minutes reading a couple of the various rules. It was enough to determine that it's a complicated patchwork of federal and state rules. In anyone has a lawyer willing to say that such behavior is unambiguously legal under all federal, state and local laws, without any thought or research, should find themselves a new lawyer.
Summary: I'm trying to keep this post a-political and just about general legal concepts. We as educated Americans (or interested foreigners)
Oooh Ooooh, I know the answer to this one. Ready, wait for it, wait for it, correlation does not equal causation. You can't just look at two factors and see a relationship and say that one caused the other. What you CAN look at is cases where a SET POPULATION had their laws changed and see what the results were. For instance you can look at Chicago or New York or Washington DC for places that enacted unconstitutional gun bans and then later had them overturned or are in the process of being challenged. This change means that you CAN control all the other variables and look at just these two. Do THAT research and get back to me.
Yeah, but can you *LEASE* them?
I'm guessing this was done because the printer manufacturer is worried about the press that would hurt their buisiness, not because it's "illicit" or anything like that.
IMHO he's far more likely to be worried about being convicted on conspiracy charges and spending most of the rest of his life in federal PMITA prison if even one person who makes a gun using information from this project breaks even one tiny regulation.
The federal firearms regulations are intended to ban most weapons manufacturing and transfer except under very controlled conditions. But the federal government didn't have the constitutional authorization to write such laws - so they were written as a tax. Because they're a tax, the courts have carved out this one loophole. But the federal agencies charged with enforcing the de facto ban does everything it can to find a way to prevent the use of this loophole.
The primary agency in question is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) - recently expanded to "and explosives (BATFE). They are notorious for their "zeal", general incompetence, extreme violence, willingness to bend the rules to make an arrest, and for prosecuting obviously failing cases until the accused is bankrupted and loses by default. They have put literally tens of thousands of people in federal prison for minor paperwork errors or claims that fender washers or pieces of muffler tubing are parts of silencers, or that dummy grenades are being made live. They have raided collectors (often licensed as "dealers" because it's WAY cheaper that way) because their own paperwork was fouled - or for no discernible reason. In one incident they threw a pregnant woman up against a wall (she miscarried shortly after) and deliberately stomped a kitten to death, just to show their power. They set up the situation in Ruby Ridge that ended with a federal sniper shooting a woman holding her baby, and in Waco where a church camp was burned to the ground - in both cases over a dispute about "a $200 tax". They are referred to as "F troop" by other federal law agencies. The "Jackbooted Thugs" ad campaign was the NRA's most effective recruiting aid.
One of their favorite tricks is to have an agent pose as a curious teenager and ask someone at a gun show how to make a gun shoot full-auto. If he tells them, they arrest him for "conspiracy to violate the federal firearms act". (First amendment? What's that?) You can bet that they'd hang similar charges on the people running a company that leased a machine to a project that is attempting to enable the general population to sidestep the same laws easily and cheaply. It looks like the operator of the company is betting that way, too.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
you broke the unwritten law of "don't piss off a business that has you by the balls"
French people have about 2.5 less guns per capita compared with the US, they have comparable suicide rates (sometimes red wine is not enough), but only 10% ot the murder rate.
Nice stat, but it is not accurate. The index you sited only includes gun related homicides, not overall homicides. The overall US homicide rate is about 3.8 times what it is in France, according to Wikipedia. It's still an outrageous figure, but not nearly 10 times. Americans commit almost 99% of our murders with guns, while the French choose guns for only 40% of their murders. Overall homicide rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate
Sure, go ahead and blame him as a scapegoat for unleashing the dogs of war.
Let me lay it on you. The powers that be are the ones to blame, since they are the ones looking to stir things up by tossing the constitution out the window.
If a homicidal maniac veers *into* someone crossing the street, do you blame the pedestrian?
Or does him having a big badass truck somehow make him immune to the obligation of following the law?
I say kudos to him for exposing the printing company for the government lapdogs they really are.
Don't blame the undertaker who is only cleaning up after the murderer.
Thanks for your informative answer. The din of uninformed opinion really is discouraging.
A follow-on question: by taking the action of cancelling the lease, did the printer manufacturer suggest a precedent of presuming liability for objects made with their printer? Their move seems cautious in this one case but certainly not in the general sense. People, being people, can and will print risky, dangerous, incredibly ill-advised things with these printers. Seems to me that anyone in the business of providing printers, supplies or even CAD files would want a very tall barrier between themselves and any user's results.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
This is entirety false.
Also, obvious troll is obvious.
So many people assume that 3D printer's can replicate retails goods that match in terms of quality and performance, and that just is not the case.
There is a correlation between the cost of the output and the quality you expect.
Most "home" 3D printing solutions use cheap plastic and are intended more as novelties rather than creating functional products out of. Professionals generally used 3D printers for rapid prototyping and testing designs rather than producing actual retail quality output.
In situations where companies are using 3D printers for actual retail product, these systems cost millions and the materials put into them also cost significantly more than the average hobbyist can afford.
Will it get better? Is this a technology that will improve over time?
NOT AT ALL.
Consider actually producing a gun that can work safely and reliably. The materials need to be high performing and product something that simply will not fail. So cheap plastic is out of the question. Printing a metal gun at home means you will spend thousands on the material to feed into the printer making the idea of printing a gun at home logistically retarded. Sure you might be able to produce something that looks like a gun, maybe even fires a bullet, but I would stake my life that I could protect myself or use it without it misfiring or exploding in my hand.
Consider printing a bike at home. You need a system capable of building a carbon or metal frame large enough to accommodate an adult. Building it piecemeal out of smaller components will result in a heavier bike that requires more welds or joinery which means you will produce something inferior to what you can buy in store. Again you can build something that looks like a bike, but would not be something people would want to use.
Now consider the idea of printing a "car" at home? To print a functional engine block alone requires 100's of pounds of metal material and a printer system capable of supporting 100's of pounds of engine block while it is being printed. There is simply no advancement in "home" printing technology that is going to make that feasible.
Today's FAD of 3D printing is nothing more than just that, a fad. The technology has become inexpensive enough to get into the hands of hobbyist, but that is where it will remain. Hobbyists making novelty items. Sure there may be markets that will be devastated by the advent of home 3D printing, such as dollar stores selling cheap garbage that only works once or twice, but in general it just boils down to the fact that you are not going to clone retail goods for cheaper then what a factory is going to produce out of the convenience of your home.
I don't mean to shit on anyone's parade but people are walking around with your pants down and need to be told that the reality of printing anything you want at home is a hopeless dream where the reality simply is either you will never produce something of quality OR it will be too expensive then just buying it outright.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
You can buy all the machine tools and heat treat ovens you need, 2nd hand, and make your own real guns.
Or, buy all the machine tools and heat ovens you need and make ... more machine tools and ovens.
Forget the damn micro-droids, make a self-replicating machine the size of a house today!
Except a printer will *not* ask for any documents or do a background check to see if you are allowed to own a gun.
Julio Henrique Morimoto juliohm@gmail.com
I may have a design for the next big mobile phone case, or the next big laptop stand, or the next big removable hard drive enclosure...
Why would I lease a machine from Stratasys for my prototypes knowing for fact they are willing to revoke my printer lease and take it back?
Because a mobile phone case isn't going doesn't have the (1) potential for PR backlash, (2) potential for legislative backlash, and (3) potential for a major liability exposure.
There are plenty of other companies who will lease on more reasonable terms.
I doubt it, especially after this incident.
Perhaps [they want] to steal my idea or prevent me from competing with them. Perhaps my next big product is closely related to the little town store run by an executives family member, and they want to shut down me as competition.
Now you're branching into pure speculation. Look... Ms. Jane Doe who just wants to print a few hundred avant garde rubber duckies for her final Master's thesis/project in art **does not care** that Stratasys yanked the lease on some gun nut (as she uncharitably calls them). She cares about the price of the lease and the capabilities of the machine. Even if she is familiar with this particular episode (and she isn't), she won't be too concerned about it because she doesn't see her own product as being "at-risk" in the same legally "gray" sense.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
"In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.."
No they won't.
They'll just blame the government for "forcing" Stratasys to pull the lease.
Still not fixed. If the US has X guns/capita, and France has (X - 2.5X) guns/capita, then France has -1.5X guns/captia (i.e. negative guns/capita) which is clearly absurd.
If the US has 2.5 times more guns per capita than France, that does not mean that France has 2.5 times fewer than the US, it means that France has 72% fewer, or 0.7 times fewer.
(On the other hand, if the US has 2.5 times as many guns per capita than France, then France has 60% fewer, or 0.6 times fewer.)
If Y is 100% more than X, it does not mean that X is 100% less than Y, it is 50% less than Y. In the first instance, you're measuring % of X, and in the other you're measuring % of Y. As X and Y are different, N% of X and Y are different, even for the same N.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
I did. When you say firearm, you make it sound like handgun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
The Swiss have relatively few handguns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Number_of_guns_in_circulation
Don't forget to read on about how difficult it is for the Swiss to acquire a carrying permit and how most Swiss gun owners have had extensive training on handling guns due to their mandatory military enlistment.
Practices that are mostly deemed superfluous or even unconstitutional in the US, if I understand correctly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Permitting_policies
So yes, take a look at Switzerland.
I've always wanted to ban "times less" as a comparison that makes no sense whatsoever. But that made it a one word edit so I did forget the stupid grammar/math rules behind that phrase.
In other words a gun in France is 4 time less liable to kill somebody than in the US....
Or put in another form, american culture and social makeup explains approx 30 000 dead people per year, the fact that it is gun related is not the main factor.
This is the argument Michael Moore made in "Bowling For Columbine" and, like most arguments Michael Moore makes, it's bullshit. He argued that since Canadians have lots of guns but don't kill people as often, it must be America's violent culture that's to blame. There might be some truth to this; social inequality tends to lead to violence, and Canada has a bigger social safety net than the U.S. But "Bowling For Columbine" dishonestly glossed over a big difference between the U.S. and Canada: the Canadians have far stricter gun control laws. You need a license to possess a gun, guns are registered, and there are limits on clip sizes. Same goes for France: you need a license and a background check, guns are registered, handgun ownership is severely restricted.
The important bits that make a gun capable of firing a bullet (or even musket ball) cannot be made by these machines, and the machines that can make those parts cannot be made by these machines, so this specific argument is as irrelevant as a discussion about making engines for faster than light travel.
It's even more amusing when you consider that the real machines you can use to make real guns appear to be cheaper than 3D printers.
I wonder how much money Stratasys will lose when a high profile group puts out the word to their membership.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Australia is largely populated by immigrant cultures from all around the globe, the vast majority of which are clustered in our major cities down the eastern seaboard. We don't have nearly the racial violence issues that the US has, nor is our homicide rate even close per capita. Gun crime is certainly lower, but that mostly because we got rid of most of the guns.
Reinforcing racism is not the answer to stamping out violent crime. Stamping out racism however may reduce the triggers for violent crime within your communities.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
So the guys running the build your own AK websites are committing conspiracy by doing a legal act and then telling people about that legal act?
Currently I've got several parts kits as investments I appreciate the FUD you are spewing as you've just raised their sale price by 20 percent.
Considering the yawping I may build out the 1919A4 kit as a semi-auto, with a legal crank device per ATF it will do 400 RPM. It's a damn wealthy man's toy though. 400 rounds is now about the same as a house payment. :/
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
the goal was more of trolling for attention and indiegogo money.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
The ATF approves... right now. But wait for their next letter on the subject, that might change.
They have put literally tens of thousands of people in federal prison for minor paperwork errors
That is the fault of the US judicial system, not any particular law enforcement agency.
One of their favorite tricks is to have an agent pose as a curious teenager and ask someone at a gun show how to make a gun shoot full-auto. If he tells them, they arrest him
And why exactly would you tell a "curious teenager" you didn't even know how to make a gun shoot full-auto anyway? If you disapprove of a law making full-auto guns illegal, then get the law changed, don't break the law then whine when you get caught.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
However that is not the same as the number of people that own at least one gun. IIRC its pretty low in the US, which implies that the people that do own a gun, own a lot. I can't find the statistic right now however.
Perhaps a better metric would be how many illegal firearms are in circulation.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Guns are for spineless redneck inbred faggots. Bring your gay ass gun over and I will run you over with my car, which is a STEERABLE bullet. With reverse.
Real men fight with their bare hands, and possibly a rolled up newspaper, you silly little car-driving person..
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
As a lawyer, have you ever seen a case where law enforcement didn't like someone's activities, were unable to prosecute him for those activities, but found another violation to prosecute? Like charging Capone with tax evasion?
The reason Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion is because he fucking evaded tax. If you think an entirely voluntary tax system would work, you're obviously on drugs. If not, you have to have laws to enforce the payment of tax, and punishments for breaking those laws.
I know for you "libertarian" types the very idea of tax makes you ill, but please try to live in the real world.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Even toy guns?
It's barely possible that just because it has the world "gun" in it that it wouldn't count as an actual gun. But you're probably right, I expect office staple guns are subject to firearms restrictions too.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
FTFY...For a second, I was terrified that we in the US actually had more than 2.5 guns per person! Thankfully, you provided a link.
Nobody really knows how many firearms there are inside of the USA. There are almost certainly many more than there are on record.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Except that Switzerland doesn't have either, if you actually look at the data. Switzerland's gun-owning rate (45.7) is half of the US (88.8), and about half the number of deaths by firearms (CH:6.4 vs US:10.27 ). Taiwan (4.6) has 5% of the gun-owning rate of the US, and about 4% of the deaths by firearms (0.42).
Did you even read the comment before you trundled out this tired cliche, probably not.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
. You need a license to possess a gun, guns are registered, and there are limits on clip sizes
We have all that in California but there's still plenty of gun crime here.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think you misunderstood ungrounded lightning's point: that the guy trying to make the plans to print a firearm online should be concerned about an overzealous law enforcement agency ruthlessly prosecuting him for something that is not actually illegal.
He was not suggesting that those AK websites were doing anything criminal, but he may be of the opinion that the ATF would prosecute them anyway, and from his tone, it's clear he wouldn't AGREE with the ATF about that.
The 2nd time the article mentioned Cody, he was called Cory.
He should have printed himself a 3d printer of his own first.
from 27 CFR 478.41 "(a) Each person intending to engage in business as an importer or manufacturer of firearms or ammunition, or a dealer in firearms shall, before commencing such business, obtain the license required by this subpart for the business to be operated"
Note the word "business". As noted in numerous other posts, if you don't intend to engage in business, it is perfectly lawful to manufacture a firearm for personal use provided that weapon is not prohibited by the National Firearms Act (i.e. any weapon which fires more than 1 round per trigger pull, a grenade launcher or short barreled shotgun)
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
I think you misunderstood ungrounded lightning's point: that the guy trying to make the plans to print a firearm online should be concerned about an overzealous law enforcement agency ruthlessly prosecuting him for something that is not actually illegal.
He was not suggesting that those AK websites were doing anything criminal, but he may be of the opinion that the ATF would prosecute them anyway, and from his tone, it's clear he wouldn't AGREE with the ATF about that.
You called it.
With one slight tweak: I was saying that the guy who leased the printer TO the project probably came to a similar conclusion, which is why he pulled the hardware back, and that based on BATF's actions in the past IMHO his decision was reasonable, not overcautious.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The United States has about 2.8 times as many guns per capita as France. (FTFY)
1 times a number is that number. (1xN=N)
1 times less than a number is 0. (N-N=0)
2.5 times less is 1 times less (0) minus 1.5 times the number. (-1.5xN)
I doubt most people who use "times less than" really mean what they say.
In the Netherlands a 3d printer is sold at the local supermarket. (Bijenkorf) So no need to lease the hardware. http://www.debijenkorf.nl/3d-systems-cube-3d-printer-7301040080 you may have to wait a bit to access.
PC1MH
I think you are assuming that anyone that is intelectually capable of constructing and operating such a device that has all of time to look at (subjectively, assuming they haven't solved aging yet either), would find our particular speck of time worthy of visitation. Also presuming that the technology for time travel is vastly beyond our near term abilities, and would be invented so far into our future as to make this recordable time moot. Likely also a tightly controlled technology.
"Ewwww why would you want to go then?"
from 27 CFR 478.41 "(a) Each person intending to engage in business as an importer or manufacturer of firearms or ammunition, or a dealer in firearms shall, before commencing such business, obtain the license required by this subpart for the business to be operated"
Note the word "business". As noted in numerous other posts, if you don't intend to engage in business, it is perfectly lawful to manufacture a firearm for personal use provided that weapon is not prohibited by the National Firearms Act (i.e. any weapon which fires more than 1 round per trigger pull, a grenade launcher or short barreled shotgun)
From 18 U.S.C. (l) : Except as provided in section 925 (d) of this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to import or bring into the United States or any possession thereof any firearm or ammunition;
So, I think you're wrong saying it only applies to businesses. Other parts of the law make it clear that the provisions apply to individuals. If you are not licensed to do what you do (in regards to firearms), you're breaking the law.
Currently they can't make metal tubes due to the method used so it will require a different technology to make the 1/16 scale steamships or gun barrels.
Laser sintering is an interested related technology but is not the same thing, unlikely to get down to the same price scale and can't make those non-porous metal tubes alone without later work either as yet.
As for needing lots of skill, in the late 1980s we were at the point where you could feed the code to make gun barrels into an automated lathe or mill, and today we are at a point where automated machine tools combining both features are probably cheaper than a black market gun in some places. Something going for hobby prices can be used to make a gun without needing a huge amount of skill - but it's a machine tool and not a 3D printer.
It's plastic versus metal and the plastic just cannot take the strain in even the most simple gun. A plastic crossbow or spring loaded speargun is one thing, but a conventional type gun or airgun powerful enough to be lethal needs a stronger and stiffer material than anything we can build up out of powdered polymer or resin. This technology is not new, the new thing is it being cheap enough to be used in the hobby market.
Anyway, that's why I disagree and think that 3D printer companies do not have to worry about the issue of guns until they start producing something that is capable of making them, which is going to be a different technology to what they are using now. There are hard limits on the properties of materials they use that prevent plastic guns, just the same way there is no wooden artillery. Of course artillery pieces were cast from bronze etc and the patterns for the moulds were made out of wood, and you could make a simple gun using a plastic pattern, casting and then some cleanup with hand tools later, but don't expect a one-step plastic gun made with a 3D printer.
But the federal government didn't have the constitutional authorization to write such laws - so they were written as a tax.
This sounds like a recipe for a dysfunctional government and overly complex tax codes. I hope this method isn't used allot.