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."

Comments

Why does 3d printing matter

[h4rr4r]

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.

Re:Why does 3d printing matter

[Archangel Michael]

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.

Re:Why does 3d printing matter

[czth]

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.)

Re:Why does 3d printing matter

[raleigh.dst]

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

Re:Why does 3d printing matter

[SirGarlon]

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.

Re:Why does 3d printing matter

[h4rr4r]

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.

Re:Why does 3d printing matter

[heypete]

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.

Re:Why does 3d printing matter

[arekin]

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.

Re:Why does 3d printing matter

[Annirak]

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.

Re:Why does 3d printing matter

[PortHaven]

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.

Re:Why does 3d printing matter

[MBGMorden]

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.

Semi-automatic weapons

[danb35]

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.

Already legally settled

[Foldarn]

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..

[ClioCJS]

"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."

Re:Symptomatic of what's wrong with American polit

[ScentCone]

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.

Various bits of FUD correction.

[nweaver]

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.

Basic math

[JustOK]

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

Defense against tyranny, and simply self-defense.

[zerofoo]

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.

Article has it completely wrong...

[PortHaven]

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?

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Re:Symptomatic of what's wrong with American polit

[heypete]

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

[CanHasDIY]

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.