Slashdot Mirror
Makerbot Cracks Down On 3D-Printable Gun Parts
Sparrowvsrevolution writes in with a story at Forbes about Makerbot deleting gun component blueprints on Thingiverse. "In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut shootings, the 3D-printing firm Makerbot has deleted a collection of blueprints for gun components from Thingiverse, its popular user-generated content website that hosts 3D-printable files. Though Thingiverse has long banned designs for weapons and their components in its terms of service, it rarely enforced the rule until the last few days, when the company's lawyer sent notices to users that their software models for gun parts were being purged from the site. Gun control advocates were especially concerned about the appearance of lower receivers for semi-automatic weapons that have appeared on Thingiverse. The lower receiver is the the 'body' of a gun, and its most regulated component. So 3D-printing that piece at home and attaching other parts ordered by mail might allow a lethal weapon to be obtained without any legal barriers or identification. Makerbot's move to delete those files may have been inspired in part by a group calling itself Defense Distributed, which announced its intention to create an entirely 3D-printable gun in August and planned to potentially upload it to Thingiverse. Defense Distributed says it's not deterred by Makerbot's move and will host the plans on its own site."
remove something from the internet.
However they feel about gun parts personally, being involved in distributing them could one day be a very bad thing. It's best to leave that to special-purpose sites.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The National Firearms Act (27 CFR, Part 479) is only about:
- fully automatic weapons
- short barreled rifes and shotguns
- silencers
- ``any other weapons'' / destructive devices
It does _not_ apply to typical pistols, rifles or shotguns.
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-1.pdf
``c. Firearm. The term “firearm” means: (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 5845 (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) a muffler or a silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition; and (8) a destructive device.''
Please note that felons are exempt from paying this $200 ``tax'' --- it's imposed only on honest, law-abiding citizens.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Replace the first "don't" with "can't" and the statement is absolutely correct.
"If you can't have a gun you don't have liberty and you're not free."
How very trendy of them.
It seems that absolutely no one is above using this tragedy for getting attention for themselves and their own gain.
It's like they say; a politician should never fail to take advantage of a disaster.
The Defense Department disagrees.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
A QUEUE is when you line up for service. A CUE is a signal for someone to say their line.
It's perfectly legal to manufacture a weapon for personal use. I can't cite a reference, since there's no law or regulation which specifically says you may. You'll have to cite something which says it's illegal, and you won't find anything.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
"Assault weapons" is a nonsense term. It's an appeal to emotion, not reason. "Ban the scaaaary guns!" You want tighter gun controls? Fine by me. But banning "assault weapons" is just cheap theater by politicians so that they can appear to be doing something instead of doing their best to not even think about causes or symptoms.
No, it doesn't. The NFA imposes a tax on the manufacture or transfer of CERTAIN firearms, namely anything full-auto, a short barreled rifle (under 16"), a short barreled shotgun, silencers, and other explosive devices. However, I agree with your second statement. Further more, the particular regulations they always start talking about, (limited capacity magazines, etc) don't make any difference in the real world.
Central Ohio Home Theater Installation - The Theater People
Not true. You are allowed to make the serialized part (the lower receiver, in the case of an AR-15) so long as it's not for sale. I've milled several out of aluminum for custom target & hunting rifles with the full blessing of local law enforcement and BATFE offices.
Oh misinformation how i love you. It is legal to make your OWN guns (not full auto) - but it is illegal to SELL them. You can mill all the gun parts you want to keep for yourself (again, sans the NFA firearms). It becomes illegal when you try to sell it.
You only have to have a manufacturing license if you wish to transfer the created firearm to another party. You can make any firearm you want as long as it does not fall under the NFA (can not be easily modified to fire more than one bullet per trigger pull, is not intentionally quieted, etc.), and you do not give it to anyone else. There is a large market in 80% complete receivers. You buy a piece of metal then bend and drill it a bit with a vice and drill press and you have an AK receiver. Order the rest online with no checks. You can also get almost finished aluminium blanks for AR receivers and mill them as you said.
You are correct in saying that most bad things people can do with a firearm are illegal. Making a firearm isn't a bad thing. Make as many as you like, just don't kill people with them.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
That isn't the case. The Federal government does not prohibit non-individuals from producing firearms for their personal use, and I'd posit that they can;t because they don't have the authority to do so. States can and some do. Others, such as Montana, have legislation specifically to protect individuals doing the above, even when those firearms are offered for sale inside the state of Montana and to other Montana residents.
thingiverse is a private organization, they can do whatever they want.
its called 'freedom'.
if you want to have a publicly funded 3d printing website that has AR-15 receivers and AK-47 bodies, you are 100% free to do so. . . you can even host it in a non-US country if you are worried about US firearms laws. I hear Somalia is very lenient towards the promulgation of AK-47s.
a mute point
That poor little point.
Now it has to learn sign language.
Problem is Assault weapons ARE already heavily controlled. You have to have a Class 3 license to buy assault rifles.
An AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon. It does not have select fire and is only a single shot semi automatic rifle.
Calling these assault rifles it like pointing at a car and calling it a truck.
here is one that will make you wig out. I can buy WITHOUT A LICENSE a fully automatic high rate of fire Gatling gun or machine gun. If it was made before 1986 It's legal to own without any permit or license.
I can also build and own a FLAME THROWER without a license.
Banning Semi automatic modular rifles will solve nothing. It was already proven that this does not work, it's why the previous ban was overturned.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I don't blame anyone for worrying about liabilities, but Pandora's Box is open, there's no closing it now. The specs for many, many firearms parts are readily available, and anyone who wants to take the time to translate those designs to 3D, is going to be able to print them, and distribute the designs. I'm waiting for someone to notice they can print 3D magazines, of any capacity they want. Yes, this is another opportunity to learn that all we do for good, can and will be perverted to bad. Are we willing to throw out the whole 3D printing movement as a result?
This is true, but to print a receiver without a federal firearms manufacturing license is a felony. I can mill one out of aluminum without a 3d printer, it would last a lot longer, but that doesn't make it legal.
That makes it absolutely legal. You can build any weapon that your personal capabilities allaw, provided that is not a "destructive device" (aka: BFG) and only fires one bullet every time the trigger pulled. The lower *is* the firearm, as far as the ATF is concerned; so if you can mill it, you can build it, and it's legal.
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 GCA, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), defines the term “firearm” to include the following: (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive: (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
Central Ohio Home Theater Installation - The Theater People
before this latest school shooting they really did not care. there has been an AR-15 receiver up on thingiverse for more than a year.
and there have been several school shootings in that time.
thingiverse even conducted a poll a few months back, the subject was whether or not users wanted to allow weapons on the site. i dont know the result of the poll, but the practical effect was nothing - they left those items up.
now all of a sudden they took them down.
nevermind 30+ children died today in automobile accidents (statistical average).
it is in no way a felony for someone to make(Including print) their own firearm. the problem comes if you try to sell that firearm.
from the atf website:
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.
Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html
'Assualt Weapons" are probably the most cynical bit of bi-partisan political theory I have seen in decades.... on the gun control side they are likely fully aware that such weapons make up such a tiny percentage of gun deaths per year that restrictions on them are unlikely to have any significant impact.. and on the gun freedom side they are likely fully aware that the way the ban (in the past) was written it was so easy to circumvent that manufacturers barely skipped a beat.
So on the one side you have politicians supporting a bill that does nothing, and on the other side you have politicians supporting a bill that,.,. ahm.. does nothing. Yet it is a good way to energize their bases and score political points.
> If it was made before 1986 It's legal to own without any permit or license.
Bullshit. Pre-86 machine guns are regulated under the NFA and require extensive paperwork with the ATF, extra background checks, waiting periods that run 6 mo to over a year, tax stamps, chief LEO sign-off, and other requirements in order to own.
All firearms which fire more than one bullet when the trigger is depressed can only be purchased by non law enforcement if they were manufactured prior to 1986 *and* the class 3 forms and background checks have been done. Doing the class 3 forms won't let you get a newer full auto, and just because its old doesn't mean you don't need the paperwork.
People complain about the amount of misinformation, but it would help if the laws weren't so complicated. Get rid of the NFA, suppressors are just hearing protection, full-autos are a novelty that would loose their appeal if they were easy to get, and short barrelled rifles and shotguns aren't significantly more deadly than any other firearm.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Your distinguishing between queue and cue is a mute point.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
I can't have a gun and I am essentially as free in my freedom of speech, hability to pursue happiness than most american. Actually more free since I may smoke pot without a problem, or even solicit sex for money and not be arrested. The only freedom I don't have is gun possession, and if you pretend that makes me NOT free, then youbeing forbidden to possess anything forbidden in USA, like say, an atom bomb even if you had the echnical possibility, or any myriad of forbiden substance, makes you NOT free. So really that sentence is utterly misleading. As for fighting against a governement, you are going to use against battle armored soldier or police... How ?
No it was not. The AR-15 is not a military weapon. Do you even know anything about that gun platform?
The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.[8] Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are independently made, modified and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
And actually, yes, there are numerous hunting variants of AR-15s. Most come with 5 round mags, have no front sight, and have a different barrel and furniture and don't look at all "tactical"
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* print their own lethal weapon.
Lets try this exact same question in another form.
Why is it a good idea to prescribe medications that increase the risk of violent behavior?
You see, it is believed that it is better to help large numbers of people even when it is at the expense of small numbers of people. If you need this in geek speak... "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
The only real debate is where the line should be. Absolute stances such as yours pretend that there is no debate, and are born of emotion rather than reason.
"His name was James Damore."
Depends on one's perspective. I have no problem with the government demanding my neighbours demonstrate a minimum level of safety and competence in constructing and possessing devices which are capable of endangering me and my property.
I mean if you build a railgun with a mean kinetic energy above that of a rifle round, well hell, I'd really like to see a requirement to register the existence of such a thing and keep it properly stored and backstopped.
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* smith their own sword.
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* carve their own spear.
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* sharpen their own rock.
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* defend themselves from attack.
The stupidity of the gun grabbers simply astounds me. They're all the moral panic of the drug war with all the security theater of the Patriot Act, and yet they would likely be against both. "Ooh, but guns are scary! Thank God some kids were murdered so we have a new excuse to bitch about them!"
Kinda, kinda not.
The AWB banned guns both by name and by featureset. The problem was the featureset was even more stupid than the list of guns, concentrating on features that were mostly cosmetic, and in a few cases, were useful to both military and non-military (legal, peaceful) shooters alike. The features that distinguish a "military weapon" from something used for target practice and shooting bears were just ignored.
So Bushmaster cranked out hundreds of thousands of stripped down AR-15 clones during the ban that weren't really AR-15s as you'd recognize them but were at least modular and had enough in common for enthusiasts of the concept to buy them, but they weren't semi-automatic versions of a military weapon by a long shot. Circumventing? Not really, this is what the framers of the AWB intended, more or less.
The only case I heard of where the laws were actively circumvented were in the production of large capacity detachable magazines. Because older magazines were grandfathered in, Colt et al just manufactured millions before the ban, stockpiling them so they could be sold afterwards. Dirty, but unlikely to have affected the effectiveness of the AWB in any real sense.
I think the "AWB was full of loopholes" meme is overdone. In reality, it was just a dumb law. It was aimed at getting military-style weapons off the streets. But there's nothing about "military style" that's relevent to effective gun control. It probably was effective at what it was designed to do, it's just what it was designed to do wasn't useful in any real sense.
There was a decline in gun violence related to weapons covered by the ban during the AWB's existence. But gun violence as a whole wasn't affected. So the AWB wasn't circumvented, it was, actually, an effective ban of something that wasn't a cause of anything. Likewise, if Pepsi were banned tomorrow, you'd expect to see the proportion of people who are overweight because of the amount of Pepsi they drink to reduce dramatically. But the number of people who are overweight would probably remain the same, as Coke, RC Cola, not to mention MacDonalds, Burger King, chocolate, ice cream, and other causes of weight gain would remain legal.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I agree. We need to license who can have kids and who can't. Letting anyone print their own future murderer is a shame and should be a crime.
Most jurisdictions in the United States do not require a license to possess a firearm.
I love people like you, taking shit out of context. You know the bible tells you to go out and kill people in the name of god, why dont you use that?
The Jeep was first built as a military vehicle. Calling a Grand Cherokee a military vehicle is as ragingly stupid as calling an AR15 a "military weapon"
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Assault Rifles and Assault Weapons are not the same thing. The latter was defined by the AWB in 1994, and the former is defined by the US military, and others, as being, essentially, an intermediate-ammunition firing battle rifle.
Moreover, the term AR-15 covers a firearm design pattern that includes M-16s and M-4s. So yes, some AR-15s are Assault Rifles.
All AR-15s are Assault Weapons, that is, they're defined as such by the AWB. I don't mean the AWB says "Weapons that have the following features are AWs" and you can see that the AR-15 fits the bill, I mean the AWB defines the AR-15 as an Assault Weapon by name.
There's a lot of controversy about the term, but it sounds like you've heard a somewhat confused explanation about them. For more information, check out the excellent Wikipedia pages on both terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapon
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You are mixing up two different weapons both based on a similar design. The original armalite AR-15 was a select fire weapon designed for a military competition. The Colt(and its derivatives) AR-15 is a a semi auto which means it cannot be an assault weapon.
One of the worlds most popular rifle designs the Mauser was designed for military use. Almost all of them are used for deer hunting these days. The military drives design for weapons due to its large budget. You would have trouble finding any kind of weapon that was designed in the last several hundred years with no input or influence from a military.
You are banning something that looks scary and that is all. Any semi-auto hunting rifle would be just as dangerous and some would argue that a straight pull bolt action or lever gun would be damn near the same. Those guns would also be in far more powerful calibers.
I think some restrictions should be enacted, we should screen gun buyers for mental problems, maybe some guns should be unavailable on the commercial market, but to single out the AR-15 is foolish and pointless.
I suspect that it was picked as the "gun" for the AR-15 because it's where the "logic" goes. That is, the trigger is there, the safety, and anything that selects between different firing modes.
Fully automatic (machine gun) and burst (three shots with one pull of the trigger) modes of fire would be implemented in the lower receiver, for example. These are heavily regulated. So it's in the ATF's interests to distinguish between AR-15 lower receivers that have these features implemented, and those that don't.
For the most part, a barrel doesn't have the same kind of regulatory impact. There are some restrictions on length, but these tend to apply to the gun as a whole. Calibre is virtually entirely unregulated, and the barrel doesn't affect the capabilities of the weapon, just the accuracy.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to have a state so omnipresent and intrusive that it has to specifically "let" you do something before you are able to do it?
In the real world, technology and technological objects exist just as surely as the sun and moon do, and the legislature is no more able to uninvent the firearm than they are to forbid the sun from setting or the moon from rising.
Weapons exist and some people will have them regardless. Better for everyone to have them than for only criminals and thugs to have them.
Ultimately the problem is not the technology, it's human behaviour. It was the same problem when we had flintlocks and the same problem when we had swords and spears and the same problem when we were bashing each others heads in with rough rocks. That is the problem we need to solve and victim disarmament laws not only dont help they are actively counterproductive, because they increase the rewards and decrease the risks for those who indulge in the problem behaviour.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The stupidity of the gun grabbers simply astounds me. They're all the moral panic of the drug war with all the security theater of the Patriot Act, and yet they would likely be against both. "Ooh, but guns are scary! Thank God some kids were murdered so we have a new excuse to bitch about them!"
Your stance is OK as long as you are also OK with the firearms homicide rate in the US being 30 times that of Australia and 60 times that of the UK.
List of countries by firearm-related death rate
Something needs to be done about the cowboy culture in the US as it is killing you off like a third world nation. I won't say that tighter gun control is all of the solution, but you have to start admitting how fucked up you are before you can even start to solve the problem.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
You are stupendously wrong.
"Assault weapon" is a term that was made up by the legislature, and is, very generally, a semi automatic firearm capable of accepting "high capacity magazines", with two or more (or was it more than two...) features from a list of: barrel shroud, bayonet mount, pistol grip, collapsing stock, etc. Cosmetic features. "Assault weapon" is a bullshit term, but it DOES mean something now, since several states have defined them, and the federal government did as well.. "Assault rifle", however, was a term coined in the military to refer to small caliber fully automatic rifles.
An AR-15 of certain configurations is considered, legally, an "assault weapon" by several states and under the previous "Assault Weapons Ban". However, identically functioning and almost identically appearing AR-15's are not. "Assault weapon" is a buzzword made up by the anti-gun legislators because it puts fear into people. I even wanted to ban them before I actually got into the politics of firearms and understood what they were actually talking about. You do not need a Class 3 for an "assault weapon".
An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. It is not fully automatic. Legitimate assault rifles (A term no one uses correctly, and a term that really has no use anyway) require a Class 3 stamp because they are fully automatic, and you can't purchase one that was manufactured after 1986, so the few that are out there are $20,000+ guns. But that's ok because poor people commit all the crime, so goes the anti-gun logic.
You are way wrong on the machine gun. NO fully automatic firearms may be purchased by a civilian that were made after 1986. Period. No amount of paperwork fixes that. The class 3 stamp for full auto machine guns is necessary to purchase a pre-1986 machine gun. You can not purchase one made after 1986 (short of some weird stuff with being an FFL "sample dealer" or whatever)
The important thing since all of this is so complicated... Is that Columbine happened during the federal assault weapon and standard capacity magazine ban, and Connecticut still has an assault weapons ban. There was no detectable drop in violent or gun crime when the federal ban was put in place, and when it expired, violent crime has ever since been on the drop. Gun control has been tried. It does not work in the United States.
I know I'm gonna get shot down as a braindead foreign factard for writing this, especially as I'm posting as Anonymous Coward, but "comment is free", so here's my two cents...
From the outside, the US can look like a really worrying place to the rest of the civilised world. First, I don't see how so many of you don't see the correlation between the fact there's about as many guns as people in the US and the fact that about 30,000 people a year are killed because of guns - this would strongly suggest a causal link to me. In practically every other country where private ownership of guns is permitted, it's heavily regulated. Most countries require a licence and an interview with a suitable authority in order to possess a firearm. Many countries also require a good reason for owning a gun, and "I wanna protect my family against the ravening hordes" isn't an acceptable reason (elsewhere). Often, active membership of a gun/hunting club is also required. These all seem like logical requirements for the ownership of something which has no purpose other than to kill/maim (again, elsewhere).
Regarding home defence: the only reason you would even need a firearm to "defend your family" is because there are so many people with guns out there. I also remember reading statistics (can't be arsed to try and find them now - another reason I'll get shot down for this post) that people who have guns in the home are far more likely to commit suicide with them, kill a family member (deliberately or accidentally) or have them stolen than they ever are to successfully defend their home against an intruder. I read a comment recently (again, can't be arsed to find it) from a law enforcement official in Alaska who said that one of the reasons there are so many home invasions is because the criminals are pretty sure that they'll be able to lay their hands on a gun or two during the break-in. He also made the point that a desperate junkie doesn't think rationally, and isn't likely to let the prospect of being shot by the homeowner put them off...
One of the most worrying things to many of us foreigners, though, is the culture that thinks they need a gun to defend against the tyrannical government. Which tyrannical government is that, then? I know that's the reason the Second Amendment was instituted in the first place, but I'm fairly sure the framers of the constitution never envisioned modern weaponry when they did it. The main argument they seem to offer is they need a gun to defend themselves from the government when they come to take their guns away. Like circular logic much? The 'prepper' folks look like they have paranoid delusions to the rest of the world, and their fears are stoked by right-wing media pundits with their outlandish conspiracy theories.
The fact that sales of guns and ammunition rocketed after the Newtown shootings is, frankly, shocking to outsiders. In most other countries that have had the misfortune to experience them, one mass shooting is reason enough to institute stricter gun laws. The US has had 36 mass shootings since Columbine...
As I remember Bill Maher saying years ago, the problem there is that too many people treat the Second Amendment as if it's the Second Commandment. Now I'll sit back and let you tell me all the ways you think I'm wrong... [Apologies for length of rant, but there's a lot of things to admire about US culture, but your unhealthy obsession with guns ain't one of them, and I find it troubling.]
The homicide rate is actually only 4 times the rate of those countries. The vehicular death rate is also 4 times more... Sure it's higher, but freedom has a price. These comparisons to countries still subject to the English crown, with no speech rights, and barely any other personal rights are patently absurd. Excessive safety and government control kills countries more than crime. So if you see a trend that the USA is slipping into a "third world nation" perhaps the cause is that the homicide rate has halved over the past 20 years! We're going to need more guns.
I'd rather lose that additional 3 people per 100,000 than lose the ability to kill anyone who breaks into my home.
I'm sorry, but that stance makes you a complete pile of shit.
I don't care what you have in your home, how valuable it is. It is NOT worth a human life to stop someone from taking it.
I like how libertarians are all in favor of liberty, until you do something they don't like. Especially because, if this wasn't about guns, but rather, say, sex toys, the libertarians would be supporting their right to decide what content they host unquestionably.
If a libertarian group would dis-invite someone for exercising their rights and liberty, then that group is clearly NOT a libertarian group.
The CDC (i.e., the US government) lists the US homicide rate as 55/million, which would make it 6th on that list. Furthermore, that list seems to exclude just about all countries in North/South America and Africa, many of which have the highest murder rates in the world. And why is the murder rate for Turkey listed as twice that of the highest country in the wikipedia list? This doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.