Slashdot Mirror
Digging Into the Legal Status of 3-D Printed Guns
jfruh writes "Defense Distributed, a U.S. nonprofit that aims to make plans for guns available owners of 3-D printers, recently received a federal firearms license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. That license doesn't cover semi-automatic weapons and machine guns, though — and there are questions about whether the legislation that defines that license really apply to the act of giving someone 3-D printing patterns. Experts on all sides of the issue seemed to agree that no clarification of the law would happen until a high-profile crime involving a 3-D printed weapon was committed."
In what way is using a 3d printer different than me making a semi-AK out of a sheet metal and supplies from homedepot?
I just don't see how it matter what tech made the gun parts. This seems more like attention seeking than a real concern. Home manufacture of semi-auto long rifles is federally speaking totally legal.
Yes, if it's a manufacturer's FFL (TFA didn't specify, but it seems to be the case from context), it does cover production of semi-automatic firearms as well as pump-action, bolt-action, revolvers, and most others. Machine guns are separate, being (as TFA notes) covered by the National Firearms Act, not the Gun Control Act. For right now, federally speaking, domestically-made semi-automatic firearms don't have any special or unique status. If Senator Feinstein gets her way, of course, that will change, but it's the case currently.
You don't need an FFL to create your own guns. You just need an FFL if you want to sell your guns commercially. Don't fuck this up congress. It's still illegal for prohibited persons from making a gun for their own use unless it's a black powder muzzle loader (aka non-modern firearm), though that might be restricted in some states AFAIK
a: An FFL7 (which is what Defense Distributed got), once they complete some additional tax paperwork, allows them to make and sell semiautomatic rifles like any other manufacturer. And there are lots of small manufacturers these days. Heck, there is one in Napa, CA, if you want a fine, vintage 2013 AR-15 with "Made in Napa, CA" printed on the side.
b: Plastic AR lower receivers are old news. There is a lot of panic buying of AR rifle components thanks to Dianne Feinstein's salesmanship, but the plastic lowers are readily available.
You can even get a 5-pack for $400!.
Distributed Defense's sales, if any, are going to be those wanting to support their R&D, as there is no way they can compete with the existing aluminum lowers, let alone existing plastic ones, on price or quality for a given price.
c: There are a lot of businesses which legally help you make your own gun. EG, you buy an 80% lower (a not completed lower receiver) which the ATF does not consider to be a gun and then you finish it yourself by renting some milling machine time and doing it yourself. Until its finished by the purchaser, its a paperweight, not a gun.
d: Some guy has even managed to do a home-made polymer lower using molding techniques.
Test your net with Netalyzr
I shoot feral animals.
You come up with a better way to deal with hogs I would love to hear it. They destroy property, kill pets and displace native fauna.
Semi-automatic rifles are under CGA. It's a shame that so many IT professionals who like to consider themselves intelligent and educated are bloody ignorant morons when it comes to firearms (and mostly should STFU).
Let me give you some basics:
- single shot muzzleloader = load from the front, and fire, then must reload every round).
- manual chambering (bolt, pump, lever, revolvers) = a mechanical action must be done to eject the old cartridge shell and chamber a new round, often this cocks the hammer/firing pin so the trigger can be pulled and one shot fired.
- single action revolver = cylinder is manually rotated by cocking of hammer. One shot fired, then chamber must be manually cycled.
- double action revolver = cyclinder is manually rotated by pulling of trigger, and fires a round. One shot fired for every trigger pull.
- semi-auto action = gas from bullet powder exploding is used to eject the empty cartridge shell. A spring is used to return the slide back to position, re-cock the firearm, and chamber a new round in the process. One trigger pull = one shot. (AR15s, "Assault Weapons", etc are all semi-automatics).
- automatic = gas from bullet powder exploding ejects cartridge, slide return re-cocks hammer, chambers a new round and then disengages hammer firing the new round. Repeat (or do/while ammo loop). An "assault rifle" M16/M4, and other fully automatic guns fall under this classification. These are the rifles which fall under the NFA.
Dang...can we computer peeps get some common sense?
Many would argue that gun violence has become more pervasive, and I'd have a hard time arguing against that statement.
Why? It's quite easy to argue against such a statement: according to FBI crime statistics gun-related homicide rates are at their lowest level since 1964 (scroll down to get the normalized rate-per-100,000 people) and have been declining for years. You can get the raw data from the FBI directly, if you prefer.
By any objective measure, gun-related homicide in the US has decreased significantly even as the number of legally-owned guns in the country has increased. People may perceive that gun violence is increasing (and it may well be true in certain localities in the country), but overall that's not the case.
According to crime records, while there's been some year-by-year variation in the number of mass shootings and victims, overall the trend has been constant since at least 1980. Despite the enormous media attention they get, they are statistically very rare. Are there too many? Absolutely.
A failed AR lower won't "blow up" because the reaction is contained by the BOLT which engages the BARREL.
It might stop operating properly if it cracks and spits out the buffer tube, but that's not an explosive failure.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The minimum legal length in the US is sixteen inches. That being said, the ATF generally considers it "constructive intent" if you have the parts to make an illegal weapon and ONLY an illegal weapon. It's been officially clarified that having a Thompson Contender interchangeable-barrel handgun, a rifle stock for the TC, AND a legal-length barrel is not constructive intent - while you could make a short-barreled rifle by putting the stock on TC, the long barrel justifies owning the stock. Same goes for AR pistols, if you have an AR pistol and an AR stock but no full-sized AR rifle, you're gonna be in some pretty serious poop. If you do have a rifle though, you're fine.
It is legally grey and I'm sure the ATF has played fast and loose with it before, but AFAIK it isn't a huge problem.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Still, though, why do we have these restrictions? Why is an 11-inch barrel legal in one instance and illegal in another?
You should stop looking for a legitimate rationale or intellectual honesty within the NFA: it's almost entirely arbitrary and enforcement is capricious. Essentially, the only valid functional classification within the NFA is that of a machine gun (ie. a firearm that fires two or more shots with a single pull of a trigger); however, even that led to the ATF issuing a machine gun classification to a shoelace.
Furthermore, do you know that suppressors (aka "silencers") are classified as Title II firearms according to the NFA? Suppressors aren't "Hollywood quiet" in real life. As a matter of fact, I believe we should propose gun safety legislation to allow "firearm mufflers" ownership to be unrestricted, just like in Finland, Norway, Poland, Italy, etc. Gun safety for hearing protection, of course.
Essentially, the NFA was the 1930's equivalent of the "assault weapons" ban: a ban on "scary looking things" and machine guns. However, at that time the intellectual dishonesty of the Wickard v. Filburn decision had yet to come to pass. Therefore, the gun control proponents felt constrained by the Constitution: they had no power to ban these weapons but they had the power to tax. Therefore, they set a fixed $200 tax on these "evil weapons" that was many times the value of the regulated items.
Now they don't bother with workarounds that. According to the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich, even producing something and giving it away for free within a single state qualifies as "interstate commerce", which implies that Congress can regulate, restrict, or ban it.
So, you asked the correct question, but ultimately there is no valid rationale for the law for you to find. Your question also applies to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (and Feinstein's current proposed law): what valid reason exists to ban things simply due to cosmetics? Why are pistol grips on rifles "evil", but are okay on pistols? Why are adjustable rifle stocks evil?
It's farcical.
What possible public interest is served by making rifles legal, pistols legal, "short-barreled rifles" legal, but a Frankengun that's a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches illegal?
Actually, all of those are legal provided you comply with the NFA.
Title I firearms (eg. rifes, pistols, shotguns) are the "regular" kind of firearms found in everyday stores and require no NFA tax stamps. Title II firearms are things like short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, machine guns, and "Any Other Weapons" (AOW); these require the tax stamp, approval from the federal government to own, etc.
The "Frankengun" you describe would be classified as an NFA short-barreled rifle (cf. this rifle) needing a stamp + federal approval, unless it lacked a stock, whereupon it would be classified as a regular handgun (cf. this pistol) with no restrictions, unless it had a vertical forward grip, whereupon it would be an AOW and need a stamp + federal approval.
BTW, you have to choose the firearm's classification *before* you make/obtain the firearm (see first link in my post).