Digging Into the Legal Status of 3-D Printed Guns

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Digging Into the Legal Status of 3-D Printed Guns

Posted by timothy on Thursday March 21, 2013 @02:21AM from the point-of-clarification-your-honor dept.

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."

60 of 404 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Why does 3d printing matter by h4rr4r · 2013-03-21 02:28 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
1. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by h4rr4r · 2013-03-21 02:30 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Reading the article I see the summary is once again totally useless.
  The issue is the manufacture of NFA weapons. 3d printing changes nothing about this, you cannot get or make NFA weapons without getting a stamp.
2. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by h4rr4r · 2013-03-21 02:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You can either use plumbing pipe or buy one online.
  Obviously the use of plumping pipe has accuracy repercussions but it can be a functional firearm if that is all you are going for.
  Barrels are not controlled by any law I know of.
3. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by h4rr4r · 2013-03-21 02:37 · Score: 2
  
  There is no need to fabricate a lower out of metal, 3d printing does not change that. You can make one out of wood if you like.
  3d printers are not capable of fabricating the high stress parts.
4. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-21 02:42 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Obviously, we need to regulate machining tools because those might make a gun. And we must regulate robotic Metal Presses, because those might make machining tools, which might make guns. We need to regulate mining iron ore, because iron ore is used to make gun parts, machining tools and Robotics. And we must regulate Big Trucks, because they might carry dirt used in mining iron ore ....
  At some point, laws don't stop people. And making more laws doesn't help.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
5. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by czth · 2013-03-21 02:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In the US, the lower receiver is considered the firearm for most legal purposes (it is the part that has the serial number and requires a background check if bought new or from a dealer), whereas barrels (part of the upper receiver, or just "upper"), at this time, do not, and can be, for example, bought through the mail or at a store with no infringing background or ID check. One can buy a barrel of barrels and then print lowers (and magazines if standard capacity magazines become banned) for them without getting any sort of permission from the state, and assemble a firearm. (For nitpickers, you do of course need more than just an upper and lower, but those other parts, such as the trigger assembly, can also be ordered without state interference.)
6. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by raleigh.dst · 2013-03-21 02:46 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Actually 'Rifle Barrels' under a certain length are regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) and enforced by the ATF. The NFA defines NFA "firearm" as: A shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length or any other weapon, other than a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machinegun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such a firearm is included in the foregoing definition.[3][4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act -Casey
7. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by jonwil · 2013-03-21 02:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Fact is, the parts of a modern machine gun (including full-auto) that a skilled metalworker can't easily fabricate at home ARE legally available online with no restrictions or background check.
  And if you dont care about making a good gun, just something that can cause some damage, its even easier.
8. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by SirGarlon · 2013-03-21 02:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I just don't see how it matter what tech made the gun parts
  Legally, it shouldn't matter. Practically, 3D printing has big implications for gun right/gun control.
  The whole idea of gun control is based on a premise that making guns is hard, requiring precision equipment and expertise. Through the end of the 20th century, it required either a specially-tooled factory, an expert craftsman, or both. (Some guns like the AK series are easier to make than others.) So the approach to gun control was to regulate the factories and the sale of what the factories produce.
  As you say, home manufacture is legal. It's not worth regulating: the expertise was rare, and the scale of production was low, and there were not any high-profile cases of homemade guns being used in heinous crimes.
  3D printing changes the world so that making a gun no longer requires specialized equipment nor specialized skills. So from the gun-control point of view, there is a real risk of guns being made in secret, in a decentralized way that is hard to detect, and being trafficked outside the existing system of licensed dealers and background checks. So the old framework of gun-control laws won't work. A would-be criminal who can easily make his own gun neatly evades the whole system.
  There big question is, what will replace the old legal model? There are many possible things the legislature could try, from giving up on gun control (unlikely) to trying to regulate the plans for gun parts (impractical, as we know from file sharing) to trying to clamp down on the printers themselves (scary).
  This is how the tech used to make the gun parts matters.
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
9. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by h4rr4r · 2013-03-21 02:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Only when installed on the gun, or when you have the gun and the barrel and intent.
  Otherwise all pistol barels would be illegal as they could be used on rifles with a little machining.
10. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by GameboyRMH · 2013-03-21 02:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because this allows any Average Joe at home to print the action of a gun, the legally controlled part, all on his own with no skill or expensive machinery and then obtain the other parts as easily as buying some used videogames, and assemble a working weapon. Legally it's no different from making a gun in a home metal shop but practically, it greatly lowers the barriers of entry to making a home-built firearm that has never been on any records of any kind. It also allows high-capacity mags to be made at home more easily, if that matters.
  I'd think it was really cool if this weren't a weapon we were talking about, especially one that can kill at long range and high frequency.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
11. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by heypete · 2013-03-21 03:15 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  While making the whole gun from scratch is hard, it's not really that hard if you use an 80% complete receiver/frame. The ATF decided that a chunk of metal becomes a "gun" when more than 80% of its production is completed. There's many companies that sell, for example, 80%-complete AR-15 lower receivers. Legally, it's a chunk of metal but you can do some basic work to finish it up.
  For example, here's some instructions. You basically need a drill press (about $100 from Amazon or $70 from Harbor Freight), some drill bits (and maybe an endmill bit) which are available for cheap at hardware stores, and some basic supplies like wood, a permanent marker, etc. 80% lowers are about $80 for small volumes but get cheaper in bulk. You can buy the jigs that tell you exactly where to drill for about $120 and they can be used to produce as many lowers as you want (they don't really wear out).
  The fire control parts, trigger, grip, etc. are about $80.
  For the "complete" gun parts, it's about $750 (that includes everything except the machine tool parts -- it includes the barrel, stock, fire control parts, etc.).
  Operating a drill press isn't terribly hard and one can be trained in a few minutes. After that, it takes a few hours to make the needed holes and the jig makes it pretty idiot-proof. Putting the rifle together isn't terribly hard (and there's lots of information online that details how to do this) and you're good to go. Basically, it's less than a day's work and less than $1,000 for the first rifle (with the cost being amortized if you make any more).
  Certain groups have "build parties" where you put your 80% lower into a CNC mill and press "start". Since you push the button, it's you who are making the gun (as opposed to the machinist) and thus is legal. It can make it in about 8 minutes.
  Sure, making your own rifle out of metal isn't trivial like it is with a 3D-printer (where you just hit "print"), but it's not that hard either.
12. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by arekin · 2013-03-21 03:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Obviously, we need to regulate machining tools because those might make a gun. And we must regulate robotic Metal Presses, because those might make machining tools, which might make guns. We need to regulate mining iron ore, because iron ore is used to make gun parts, machining tools and Robotics. And we must regulate Big Trucks, because they might carry dirt used in mining iron ore ....
  At some point, laws don't stop people. And making more laws doesn't help.
  Slippery Slope fallacy much? We make laws to define legality, not to ensure that nothing illegal ever happens. If making something a law was an immediate solution we would have not crime ever. If it is illegal to print weapons then most people will not do it because they do not wish to break the law. In fact the people who would wish to break the law to get a gun will just go get a actual gun not a 3d printed one. No point in getting arrested over a temporary weapon.
  
  --
  Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
13. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by redmid17 · 2013-03-21 03:31 · Score: 2
  
  Most of the parts of a modern machine gun are identical to the semi-auto models. The few that aren't available legally to non-FFL require the background check but aren't too difficult to manufacture. The trick is to get the timing on the gun so it doesn't always jam or fail.
14. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by Annirak · 2013-03-21 03:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I just don't see how it matter what tech made the gun parts
  Legally, it shouldn't matter. Practically, 3D printing has big implications for gun right/gun control.
  I disagree. It took me a while to put my finger on it, but I finally worked it out. 3D printing is not a revolution, it's just popular. You can put a CNC mill together for between 1.5x and 2x the price of a hobbyist 3D printer. It will work with metal and it will produce a smoother and more accurate final product. Why is 3D printing being singled out when CNC mills are a much more viable problem?
  
  3D printing changes the world so that making a gun no longer requires specialized equipment nor specialized skills. So from the gun-control point of view, there is a real risk of guns being made in secret, in a decentralized way that is hard to detect, and being trafficked outside the existing system of licensed dealers and background checks. So the old framework of gun-control laws won't work. A would-be criminal who can easily make his own gun neatly evades the whole system.
  This simply isn't true. Home CNC has been around for over a decade, in the $2000-$10,000 range. The more DIY you want to get, the lower it goes. The software is open source (LinuxCNC) and the electronics are simple.
  
  There big question is, what will replace the old legal model? There are many possible things the legislature could try, from giving up on gun control (unlikely) to trying to regulate the plans for gun parts (impractical, as we know from file sharing) to trying to clamp down on the printers themselves (scary).
  This is a good question. The problem, though, is that the ship has sailed on controlling the printers. There are so many plans available from so many people (see file sharing) and the printers themselves are cobbled together from hobby electronics and parts you can buy at Home Depot.
  
  This is how the tech used to make the gun parts matters.
  You may be right that someone in government will try and crack down on the printers themselves (Think of the children!), but it won't be long after that happens that someone with a CNC mill starts producing "controlled" items. The technology used is irrelevant.
15. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by PortHaven · 2013-03-21 03:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  In my life, the slippery slope fallacy has more often than not been the fallacy. I am sad to say that the slippery slope predictions are usually what end up being true in the end.
16. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by CanHasDIY · 2013-03-21 03:46 · Score: 2
  
  Either way if we want to end gun deaths, banning pistols which are used in order of magnitudes more murders would be a far better approach.
  ... and still, effectively, a useless effort.
  If "we" really, truly wanted to "end gun deaths," the only way to make it happen would be to convince not only every individual, but every government, that we as a species have more important things to do than point weapons at one another.
  The day that the rest of the world agrees to put down their arms and live in peace and harmony, I too will lay mine to rest, but not a moment sooner.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
17. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by MBGMorden · 2013-03-21 03:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think that's the main point. Guns have been around for the better part of a millenia now. The basic principle of modern semi-automatic cartridge-fed firearms has been around for over 100 years. The reality is that people have been making these things with the most basic of tools LONG before modern 3d-printers and CNC machines were invented.
  At its heart a gun is a pretty simple device. Those "high capacity magazines" that they keep whining about are a couple pieces of folded metal and a spring (alternatively, a printed plastic tube and a spring). Regulation of such things was always futile, and the better home manufacturing tools get (for all things) the harder it will become.
  Eventually you have to accept the stark reality that people cannot be controlled. If they do something bad they can be punished, but that goal of controlling the populace to keep them from doing something in the first place is just a pipe dream.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
18. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by MBGMorden · 2013-03-21 03:49 · Score: 2
  
  The slope has already gotten slippery. A printed gun by itself doesn't hurt anyone. It only has the POTENTIAL to be used in such a way that someone can be injured or killed.
  If you want to stop the iterative process that you feel unnecessary, then we go to the core issue: its against the law to kill someone. If that's against the law most people won't do it. The people who still will won't have any issue breaking any chain of laws that lead up to that issue, so there's no sense in creating that chain of laws until we get to the actual problem, which is a murder.
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
19. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by ShanghaiBill · 2013-03-21 04:01 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The skills required is essentially "can operate a power drill". It's really not that complex.
  As someone who owns both a 3D printer and some CNC machine tools, I very much disagree. Precision machining of weapons-grade steel requires a huge amount of skill and experience. I started CNC machining 15 years ago, and I would probably need to do a few weeks of research and practice, and probably buy some new equipment, before I could make a functional rifled barrel. I have done most of my machining work with plastics such as actetal (Delrin), and aluminum, but I have worked with steel enough to know that it is significantly more difficult.
  With 3D printing, on the other hand, you just push the button and wait. The downside is that for 3D printing at home, you are limited to plastic. But that will change soon enough.
20. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by heypete · 2013-03-21 04:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Sorry for any confusion: I was referring to the knowledge required to complete an "80% lower", which is legally a chunk of metal (not a gun). All you need is a drill press to complete such a lower.
  The remaining parts, like barrels, are essentially unregulated gun parts.
  The distinction came about because the government had to exactly specify what is a "gun" and what is not. Is a piece of iron ore or metal billet a gun? Clearly not. Is a spring or trigger a gun? No. Is a gun merely a collection of all its parts? If so, what parts can be removed to make it "not a gun"? If someone sells the parts one at a time, does that count as selling a gun?These questions were answered a while back when they said that the receiver/frame of a gun is "the gun" and that a chunk of metal only becomes "a gun" when more than 80% of the machining work needed to make the receiver/frame is complete.
  You're right -- making a gun completely from scratch, including the barrel, is significantly more complex.
21. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by CanHasDIY · 2013-03-21 04:44 · Score: 2
  
  ["Thugs"] prefer cheap and easily concealed pistols.
  You seem to think that, if their preferred weapon was unavailable, they would just decide, "Ho, hum, can't get a pistol, guess I'll stop being a worthless POS and go get a job!"
  Not realistic. What is realistic is that their preferred weapon would become something different - I would pray cudgels and bludgeons, but I highly doubt gang-bangers are going to willingly de-escalate their armaments. Realistically, they'll switch to long guns and explosives. Is that really a better situation?
  
  I do not need a gun for self protection and if I did I would move.
  Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it, friend.
  Also, I live in bear country, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna let Winnie the Pooh chase me away.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
22. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by Archangel+Michael · 2013-03-21 05:10 · Score: 2
  
  Well, we could ban education, because it is dangerous, people might learn something that can be used wrongly. ;-)
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
23. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by robkeeney · 2013-03-21 05:22 · Score: 2
  
  That is my experience too.
  Lots of anti-gun people say "nobody wants to take your gun away" yet a lot of legislation has been introduced in various states which includes, if not outright confiscation, then de facto confiscation. Gov. Andrew Cuomo said "Confiscation could be an option" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=0). So anti-gun people, shut up with the lie that "nobody wants to take your gun away". We know you are lying (or just stupid) when you say it.
24. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by IndustrialComplex · 2013-03-21 05:44 · Score: 2
  
  If anyone has the intelligence to raise the $2-5k for a 3dprinter/parts and the ability to use one to make a working firearm, I'm not going to worry that they might use it to shoot someone.
  Why?
  Because anyone with that intelligence and $2-5k could buy a better gun, or figure out some other way to be dangerous if they had the intent.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
25. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by jafiwam · 2013-03-21 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  Actually 'Rifle Barrels' under a certain length are regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) and enforced by the ATF. The NFA defines NFA "firearm" as: A shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length or any other weapon, other than a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machinegun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such a firearm is included in the foregoing definition.[3][4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act -Casey
  The legal status of the barrel is not codified until it's mounted on a firearm frame. While, it makes a bit more sense to think of the barrel is the firearm in some contexts, the legal definition of a firearm is the frame where the receiver and trigger assembly is.
  Put the same barrel on a stripped AR15 upper purchased as "other" or "pistol" on a 4473 and it's legally now part of a pistol and the length is not regulated. Only in that case, there being a second hand grip or stock on it is the part that is regulated.
26. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by lister+king+of+smeg · 2013-03-21 05:57 · Score: 2
  
  I disagree.
  Making handguns unavailable would do a lot to end gangland murders. We have no need to convince you or me to not shoot each other, we need to disarm thugs. They prefer cheap and easily concealed pistols. The crime statistics show this.
  I do not need a gun for self protection and if I did I would move.
  no it won't other wise there would be no drug problem as we have banned the sale possesion and production of pot heroin meth and many other drugs yet they are every where any way its called a black market you can't get rid of you problems by banning.
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
27. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by OutSourcingIsTreason · 2013-03-21 06:01 · Score: 2
  
  We bother outlawing murder, we should bother defining each method of murder. Is strangling worse or better than a claw hammer to the head? Why does it matter if a pistol was used and not an "assault rifle". And why do we go after "assault rifles" when the pistols / revolvers were used?
  I'm licensed to drive a car. Why isn't that sufficient for me to operate a big rig?
  
  I realize that the left tends to be more passionate about things, and uses their feelings to judge things, but it doesn't really serve society well. We should judge the results, not the intentions. When I hear "what about the children?" asked, I know whatever comes next isn't about results, it is about how someone feels about something. Tyranny comes next.
  You should also realize that the right's gun fetish clouds their judgement at the expense of common-sense gun regulations.This is why assault weapons can be easily obtained by mass-murderers, crazy people, drug dealers, and gang bangers. Tyranny is when you can't safely go to a school, a shopping mall, or a movie theater without becoming a statistic in the latest mass killing.
  
  --
  "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
28. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by bdwebb · 2013-03-21 06:27 · Score: 2
  
  FTFY - http://www.brownells.com/books-videos/books/gunsmithing-books/barrel-making-books/hand-rifling-a-muzzle-loading-rifle-barrel-at-home-prod15609.aspx
29. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by Zak3056 · 2013-03-21 07:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  3d printing changes nothing about this, you cannot get or make NFA weapons without getting a stamp
  ...and a time machine.
  Strictly speaking, this is not true. "NFA" covers suppressors, short barreled shotguns, destructive devices, etc, and those can still be made today. Even a machine gun can still be made, though, of course, you'd have to be a SOT to possess it, and you'd have to be making it for some entity that was legal to buy one (like law enforcement), or for some other purpose allowed by law.
  
  --
  What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
30. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by spire3661 · 2013-03-21 07:44 · Score: 2
  
  Using a computer used to require some skill and understanding of the design. Now any moron such as your self can get on the internet and spread his odious opinions. Im more worried about people like you who think they are oh-so-smart.
  
  --
  Good-bye
31. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by Feyshtey · 2013-03-21 07:48 · Score: 2
  
  But there's no regulation limiting may access to or right to own or distribute design schematics for those same things. In the case of Defense Distributed, they are currently licensed to build and distribute standard firearms, but not arms govered by NFA, like automatic weapons, suppressors, etc. But the question is can Defense Distributed still provide designs for NFA weapons. I would contend that the answer is yes.
  
  I would equate this to writing or distributing a manual on how to make acetaminophen tablets, or how to correctly dose and administer morphine. There's nothing illegal about the knowledge, but you must be properly licensed to actually act on it.
  
  --
  "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
32. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by spire3661 · 2013-03-21 07:52 · Score: 2
  
  A smart gun nut will say i want enough firepower to be able to match the police and perhaps the national guard. After that, munitions become too powerful in the hands of individuals. Our defense against the military is the hope they wont fire on US citizens.
  
  --
  Good-bye
33. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by cusco · 2013-03-21 09:41 · Score: 2
  
  You do realize that people go to schools, shopping malls and movie theaters in places like Iraq, Nigeria and Colombia, which are awash with fully automatic weapons, and don't worry about "becoming a statistic in the latest mass killing"? The reason being that it almost never happens, anywhere. If you start wasting your time worrying about things like that you may as well worry about being hit by a runaway horse or whether you're going to spontaneously combust while you're at it, they're about as likely.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
34. Re:Why does 3d printing matter by arekin · 2013-03-21 11:07 · Score: 2
  
  Slippery Slope is a LOGICAL Fallacy not because it doesn't work, but rather that it doesn't work all the time. In this case, I used Slippery Slope to point out how silly it is to "ban" something because it might be used to do something "bad". Do we ban 3D printers because they can make a lower receiver to a gun? If so, then why wouldn't we do the same thing with all those other things I mentioned (slippery slope). At what point does making something that has a million legal uses illegal simply because someone might make something bad with it?
  When you define that property, then you'll have broken the slippery slope. BUT it is up to those that say "ban 3D printers because they make guns" to define that point, because otherwise their logic extends all the way down the manufacturing chain. "Might make a gun" is not reason enough. "Too Easy" is not reason enough.
  I see no one saying "ban 3d printers". I see many people saying "ban 3D printing of guns". If people were suggesting we ban 3d printers your argument would be valid. They are not, and as such your chain of events is the very definition of slippery slope.
  
  --
  Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
Semi-automatic weapons by danb35 · 2013-03-21 02:30 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
1. Re:Semi-automatic weapons by raleigh.dst · 2013-03-21 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  I think the biggest problem with the inclusion of the words "without significant sporting purpose" is that who decides this and what are the thresholds for defining it. When we went hunting this year I took my Mosin Nagant M91/30, a true battle rifle albeit and old one. We also had an AR-10 and an AR-15 as well. Just because the AR platform guns look like they could be carried into a war zone does not make it any less valid for sporting use. Cosmetic changes to popular sporting caliber firearms do not make them battle rifles. Conversely the idea that sporting purpose is reserved only for hunting is also wrong. With the rise of defensive tactics as a sporting category these firearms are the platform of choice for competitors. As long as Defense Distributed has the appropriate level of FFL they are within their rights as a manufacturer to produce serialized and registered parts for these platforms. An example of something they can't produce for sale under their current license would be a drop in auto sear which would convert one of the semi-auto platforms to a full-auto platform. They can however produce firearms for sale, development and testing purposes that can include full-auto firing platforms if they submit and file a Class 3 upgrade to their Type 7 FFL. --Casey
2. Re:Semi-automatic weapons by MBGMorden · 2013-03-21 04:07 · Score: 2
  
  a) Hunting deer is legal in quite a few states with 5.56. It certainly is here in SC. While I personally would go larger, I certainly wouldn't go "at least .308". .308 is overkill. My favorite deer rifle is a custom built bolt action in .257 Roberts which is MUCH less powerful than a .308 but works fine for deer.
  b) The AR-15 is most commonly chambered in 5.56 NATO, but thats not universally the case. Its available in a whole lot of other configurations. In particular the .300 AAC Blackout round (5.56 case necked up to accept a .308" bullet) has become popular and many AR-15's have been coming in that lately since it uses all the same parts and magazines as 5.56 (the barrel is the only thing different). This round is most certainly suitable for hunting.
  The reality is that "hunting" rifles for a long time have followed the same developments as military rifles. For the first 50 years of the 20th century bolt action "hunting" rilfes were all the rage because that's what the military had been using and there were a ton of them available on the surplus market. Time has progressed, and so has technology. The AR-15 is becoming far more popular in all aspects of shooting, including hunting. I personally will be building one of the aforementioned models in .300 AAC Blackout to do my hunting with as soon as the prices on the components calm down (gun prices have gone through the roof in the last few months).
  
  --
  "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
3. Re:Semi-automatic weapons by heypete · 2013-03-21 04:21 · Score: 2
  
  Plenty of manufacturers make .223 ammo designed for hunting deer: softpoints and ballistic tip ammo designed specifically for them is widely available.
  Hunting with mil-spec FMJ ammo is not ethical, I agree, but with modern bullets .223 is not an unreasonable round for deer (though perhaps in the lower half of the "acceptable" range). It's more than adequate for smaller predators like coyotes.
This just in by redmid17 · 2013-03-21 02:41 · Score: 3, Informative

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
Already legally settled by Foldarn · 2013-03-21 02:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's already legally settled. You CAN manufacture your own firearms provided it does not run afoul of NFA. You do not need an FFL for this. You cannot transfer the firearm to another person, but it is 100% legal to make a firearm for yourself. Where does a semi-automatic weapon even come into play here? Subby is very uninformed on firearms laws. There are no questions as to whether an FFL allows someone to teach another how to manufacture firearms. All it does is allows you to buy and sell firearms as a business. Terrible article description.
what they really mean.. by ClioCJS · 2013-03-21 02:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

"no clarification of the law would happen until a high-profile crime involving a 3-D printed weapon was committed"
Run through my personal translator:
"instead of deciding how things should be, objectively, we want to wait until there are a few corpses we can parade around to make an emotional appeal to garner support to further reduce the rights of the law-abiding. Hopefully these corpses will be children, because they appeal to people's genetically programmed emotional reactions."

--
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Re:Symptomatic of what's wrong with American polit by ScentCone · 2013-03-21 02:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

With gun issues at the forefront of today's political discussion, how is this not a topic that needs immediate attention?
"Gun issues" are only at the front of any discussion because specific interest groups and politicians who pander to them are using a crazy person's already illegal acts to try to cement significant new reductions in liberty and increases in Nanny State invasiveness. Those broader goals are always at the top of that demographic's agenda, and they use whichever current events are handy in that mission. This is a topic [home made objects] that doesn't need immediate attention because it doesn't need ANY attention. It never did. It has nothing to do with what crazy, broken people do with objects they buy or make.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Various bits of FUD correction. by nweaver · 2013-03-21 03:01 · Score: 5, Informative

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
Re:What do US folk need guns for exactly? by redmid17 · 2013-03-21 03:10 · Score: 2

Well it's a right so you don't need it for anything to one one. However I use mine for hunting and sport shooting. I would use them for self-defense if I had to.
Basic math by JustOK · 2013-03-21 03:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

1st amendment + 2nd amendment = right to print arms

--
rewriting history since 2109
Re:What do US folk need guns for exactly? by h4rr4r · 2013-03-21 03:29 · Score: 3, Informative

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.
Defense against tyranny, and simply self-defense. by zerofoo · 2013-03-21 03:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

The right to keep and bear arms goes back to the founding days of this country. Our founding fathers realized that without an armed population, government is free to do as it wishes. Our founders needed their guns to declare their independence and self-rule. They also knew that maintaining that independence required an armed populace.
I am stunned when someone poses a statement along the lines of: "You don't have tyranny, why do you need guns?" The person asking this question never stops to think "maybe they don't have tyranny because they have guns".
The next standard argument against guns is that a guy with a rifle could never challenge a tank or aircraft. This is true. But what an armed population lacks in technology, they make up for in numbers. During hunting season the woods of Pennsylvania are filled with 600,000 to 700,000 armed people. At that time, it is the largest "standing army" in the world. Think about that for a minute - one state of hunters dwarfs the biggest standing army in the world.
If tyranny comes to our country, the entire armed population will need to fight. If Afghanistan and Syria taught us anything it's that armed asymmetric guerrilla warfare is very effective. It even gives the world's best funded, best trained military a difficult time.
The responsibility of bearing arms is not a "macho" or "manly" thing. I choose to become proficient with firearms for a number of reasons - readiness if my country needs me, and readiness if my family needs me. I could not live with myself if someone caused harm to my family and I could do nothing to stop them.
Finally, the right of free men and women to defend themselves and their property is a natural-born right, not subject to the political process or the whims of others. Those that say they are free without the means to defend themselves are only free so long as others allow them to be free. That is not true freedom.
The concepts of freedom, liberty, and self-defense are not difficult concepts to understand. They are so deeply ingrained in american life, that these protections have been intentionally and strongly worded into our government's founding documents. These are the documents we all agree to govern ourselves by.
Re:Symptomatic of what's wrong with American polit by Cajun+Hell · 2013-03-21 03:32 · Score: 2

You're right that it's symptomatic of what's wrong with American politics, but I think you stated the case backwards.
The "modern issue" at stake is that people are worried that 3D printers might start getting regulated, with people-going-apeshit-with-guns used as the justification. Wanna make dollhouses? Get a printer license, so that you can enter your license id into the printer, so that it can call the Manufacturer Restrictions Management server to get permission to operate, as well as upload your dollhouse plan. Or your sex toy or farm implement or vaguely-legal-or-illegal gun or car part.
The stuff about a "high-profile crime" can be seen as a cynical comment that while generic manufacturing tech isn't currently under attack, it eventually will be, as part of a stupid over-reaction to what some fuckwit decides to do with the power -- the power which tech improvements are handing to everyone. As we all get more capable, we all get more scary. And politicians know that scared people will demand government do authoritarian things. Make people-who-aren't-me less scary, by making people-who-aren't-me less capable.

Yes, let's just file this issue away until the problem is too pervasive to control. Nobody take responsibility. Brilliant.
People aren't "filing it away" ; they're making a statement. The statement is: don't do it. Don't continue the recent few decades' pattern of using prior restraint to regulate what people are able to do, since prior restraint has been shown to always end up limiting both good and bad activities.
With political speech itself, as a society we seem to mostly "get" that it's necessary to hold back on prior restraint and instead hold people accountable for bad things that they may do, and persuade people to not do bad things. With all other forms of liberty, we seem to be taking a diametrically opposite approach, of capability-prevention rather than responsibility. It's as though everyone in America is an armchair military intelligence officer, looking at everyone else's capabilities rather than their intents.
I'm saying that's bad, proven by how it has led to a lot of stupid stuff (e.g. DMCA, CALEA), all of which is daily fodder for Slashdot. That ain't "filing away"; that's flaming. Ok, so flaming isn't as good as voting, but maybe some day, more people will vote. Let's aim for 5% in 2014!

The ineptitude of American politics and their reactionist mentality have slowly turned us into a de facto laissez-faire society.
Where the fuck in America are you seeing that? How is it laissez-faire for government to say people are not allowed to write a computer program which plays a movie or makes a secure phone call? How is it laissez-faire for government's presence to be looming over 3D printing tech? I wish I could agree with you that we're turning into a laissez-faire society but every news story points to the opposite.
Even when we hear about massive industrial fraud (e.g. the bank thing) framed as failures of deregulation, we always find that government's involvement in restricting entry into the market, is the very thing which caused the criminals to be in such a privileged position to begin with, unaccountable and unnaturally-overpowered thanks to our rejection of laissez-faire.

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Article has it completely wrong... by PortHaven · 2013-03-21 03:39 · Score: 4, Informative

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?
Re:What do US folk need guns for exactly? by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-03-21 03:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

As far as I can tell, school shootings are no more common in the U.S. on a per person basis than anywhere else in the world. There are two reasons they seem more common in the U.S. The first is that they get more press. The second is that there are more people in the U.S. relative to the populations of other countries than most people realize.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Why is the Second Amendment so.... by 3seas · 2013-03-21 03:47 · Score: 2

... difficult for government to understand?
As the purpose of it was the people would be able to defend themselves from the government, should the government get to far out of line.(See Declaration of Independence for all this) But there seems to be all sorts of double standards being applied by government to removed the ability of the people to defend themselves against a rough government, If at least not having equal but lessor fire power (which is no defense)
As a rough government can be worse than any smaller criminal individual or group, being able to defending againt government would inherently have the ability to defend against lessor.
Talk about school shooting, postal worker shootings, day trading shootings, etc... does even get creat a scratch in the governments use of weapons in the world. And many believe the US government is arming itself for a civil war.... so... who is saying whether or not the second amendment applies?
Re:What do US folk need guns for exactly? by heypete · 2013-03-21 03:48 · Score: 2

There's no western society that "lives without guns". There's still gun owners in the UK and Australia, where guns are heavily restricted. The closest that I know of is Japan.
"US folk" use guns for pretty much the same way that people in other countries use them for: recreation, target shooting, hunting, competition, and other shooting sports. For various reasons, such sports are more common in modern America than they are in countries like the UK.
Self-defense is also a common reason for owning guns. There's a lot of places in the country that are quite rural and remote, where police response time can be measured in tens of minutes. Simply put, if a violent crime does occur then one has to fend for oneself until the police show up. Even in urban areas, police response is non-instantaneous: my friends used to live in a "nice" suburb of Phoenix, Arizona. Violent crime rates there are extremely low (60% lower than the state average and 50% lower than the national average). They lived in a gated townhouse community. Still, they had two attempted occupied-dwelling robberies within the span of a year and a half. In both cases, the fact that they were armed repelled the criminals -- one was later caught and arrested. They were lucky, as nobody was harmed and no shots were fired. Violent crime, while rare, can happen pretty much anywhere. (For what it's worth, they ended up getting a dog and moving to a bigger house with a yard rather than remain in the townhouse.)
The average American gun owner is not very likely to commit crimes -- nearly all gun-related violent crimes are related to drug trafficking or gang violence and are mostly carried out by people who already have criminal records that prohibit them from owning guns.
Re:Symptomatic of what's wrong with American polit by heypete · 2013-03-21 04:00 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Re:Taking a page from video games by CanHasDIY · 2013-03-21 04:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you were a 3d printer manufacturer, would you like your company to be associated with a mass killing?
What. The. Fuck. Are. You. On. About.
Does Harbor Freight get 'associated' with mass killings because they sell machines you can use to make a gun? Do people (who aren't complete fucking imbeciles, that is) associate Lowe's with the OKC bombing because they sell pipe nipples and fertilizer?
See, what you've done here is provide a sterling example of what vapid political hacks with a fucking agenda do, when they don't have any actual, valid arguments to make - they start searching for an innocent party to martyr. Congratulations, you're part of the problem.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:ridiculousness by couchslug · 2013-03-21 04:18 · Score: 3, Informative

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."
Nobody's going to worry abou intent with a 17" bbl by caveat · 2013-03-21 04:48 · Score: 3, Informative

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
Re:Nobody's going to worry abou intent with a 17" by jafiwam · 2013-03-21 05:51 · Score: 2

Not a stupid question. The GP is simply wrong. 16 inches is specific to a RIFLE barrel. 18 for shotguns. If the 11 inch barrel is on a registered SBR (short barrel rifle) or on a pistol, it's legal. The gun it's attached to, and how that is classified is what makes it legal or not.
Re:Defense against tyranny, and simply self-defens by zerofoo · 2013-03-21 06:08 · Score: 2

Your definition of tyranny and mine are a bit different. Until "they" start shooting at us, we are merely seeking peaceful redress of our grievances.
Yes, our political and justice system do have their flaws, but a shooting match is not required to fix the current flaws. Good candidates and honest elections can fix these problems. Is our government ready to kill millions of it's own citizens? I don't think so.
That is a fruitless endeavor by stoploss · 2013-03-21 08:02 · Score: 3, Informative

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).