DoD Descends On DEFCAD

First time accepted submitter He Who Has No Name writes "While the ATF appears to have no open objection to 3D printed firearms at this time, the Department of Defense apparently does. A short while ago, '#DEFCAD has gone dark at the request of the Department of Defense Trade Controls. Take it up with the Secretary of State' appeared on the group's site, and download links for files hosted there began to give users popups warning of the DoD takeover." Well, that didn't take long. Note: As of this writing, the site is returning an error, rather than the message above, but founder Cody Wilson has posted a similar message to twitter. At least the Commander in Chief is in town to deliver the message personally. Update: 05/09 21:17 GMT by T : Tweet aside, that should be Department of State, rather than Department of Defense, as many readers have pointed out. (Thanks!)

Comments

Well there ya go

[fustakrakich]

Glad to see that the first amendment is so inviolable...

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

First amendment only applies to our corporate overlords.

Re:Well there ya go

[maxwell demon]

Well, the first amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, not about the right to make arms.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be the 2nd, not 1st.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Much like the second amendment protecting you from unreasonable search and seisure and giving women the right to vote.

Re:Well there ya go

[Darth Snowshoe]

Just thinking out loud here - maybe you are meaning the second amendment?

Re:Well there ya go

[Zontar The Mindless]

Well, the first amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, not about the right to make arms.

Uh, what? Could you repeat that? Thanks.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on. This is not about the First Amendment. What they were doing was a brazen violation of ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) which explicitly prohibit the sharing by US individuals/entities of technical data pertaining to defense articles (i.e. those items that appear on the US Munitions List) with foreign entities. Posting on an open website certainly qualifies. To share any such data with a foreign entity requires a license from the State Department.

http://pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/2012/ITAR_Part_121.pdf

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

In the debates over abortion, one of the points supporters made was that denial of access to the means of exercising a right was indistinguishable from denying the right itself.

Re:Well there ya go

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Press is free for those as own one.

Re:Well there ya go

[h4rr4r]

This is a zip gun not some wonder weapon. How the hell is this a defense article?

Re:Well there ya go

[jythie]

I would say 'possible violation' rather then brazen. It would have been nice if they reviewed the files and said 'nope, this is covered under existing exemptions', but the fact that they are reviewing it does not mean the author is in 'brazen' violation.

Re:Well there ya go

[Nadaka]

Its probably an arms export violation. Much like PGP was.

Re:Well there ya go

[JustOK]

1st amendment + 2 amendment = right to print arms

Re:Well there ya go

[shentino]

Sadly, it's a defense article because the DoD fucking said so.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

hah, great!

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything on the US Munitions List is considered a defense article. These are enumerated in the PDF I referenced and the definitions are quite broad. To wit, the first two items in Category I

* (a) Nonautomatic and semi-automatic
firearms to caliber .50 inclusive (12.7 mm).
* (b) Fully automatic firearms to .50 caliber
inclusive (12.7 mm).

Re:Well there ya go

[h4rr4r]

I don't think they have said that yet. They are now in the process of reviewing it.

Re:Well there ya go

[sycodon]

To paraphrase the fictional Dr. Ian Malcolm:

"Tyranny finds a way".

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

+ 3rd amendment = right to print arms... in your home.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Read more and post less. This is not your blog and every second comment doesn't need to come from you. We've all heard your mundane opinion on practically everything 20 times over at this point. You have 10+ posts in this thread alone...

Re: Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Better not let him have a gun, he's obviously a risk if he's flipping into homocidal rages because of something stupid someone said.

Re:Well there ya go

[CanHasDIY]

Come on. This is not about the First Amendment. What they were doing was a brazen violation of ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) which explicitly prohibit the sharing by US individuals/entities of technical data pertaining to defense articles (i.e. those items that appear on the US Munitions List) with foreign entities. Posting on an open website certainly qualifies.

Yea, cuz, you know, the last thing the federal government would want is some American spreading around information to foreigners that would help them defend themselves against our government.

No sarc.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked at a company producing ITAR goods, and I assure you that simple consumer-grade firearms are not covered by ITAR.

Re:Well there ya go

[mu51c10rd]

+ 13th amendment = right to print arms in your home...but you can't make other people do it for you.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

My Constitution trumps ITAR.

Re:Well there ya go

[crutchy]

are you some kinda moron... how can i collect my bear arms without a gun to shoot the bears first?

Re:Well there ya go

[WWJohnBrowningDo]

You have 10+ posts in this thread alone...

Says the guy who makes 100 posts in every thread.

Re:Well there ya go

[crutchy]

the TPPA (in negotiation) may allow some transfer of data between the US and it's cross-Pacific allies... it will be interesting to see how two pieces of contradictory legislation hold up against each other.

Re:Well there ya go

[chiefmojorising]

You're one to talk, Anonymous Coward. I see you posting here all the time!

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3733655&cid=43678303

Re:Well there ya go

[Bacon Bits]

And I'm sure their report will promptly be made available.

Shortly before the turn of the century, that is.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Hope and change!

Good thing that this guy isn't like Bush.... :/

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

+ 21st Amendment = right to print arms in your home...but you can't make other people do it for you, but you can share a beer whilst doing so!

Re:Well there ya go

[Jane Q. Public]

"In the debates over abortion, one of the points supporters made was that denial of access to the means of exercising a right was indistinguishable from denying the right itself."

So true. Now tell that to the people who want to register and restrict guns, and / or restrict ammo. Especially the latter. They have said in so many words: you have the right to bear arms, but not to shoot them. Which -- as you point out -- is just as injurious to your right as taking the guns away.

Re:Well there ya go

[cold fjord]

To be fair, I think his account is compromised. Either that or he has some form of multiple personality disorder. I think I like him best when he is English. At least he tends to be polite then.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most of the seizures I've had are unreasonable. In fakt i aalwaaaaaaaaaaaaa..............

Re:Well there ya go

[ganjadude]

because you cant find blueprints of other weapons all over the internet and in libraries? I mean seriously

Re:Well there ya go

[sanman2]

And apparently the Second Amendment is even more violable

Re:Well there ya go

[Lakitu]

Please don't shitpost like this.

Your sarcasm is lost in the text. All it can possibly do is convince people reading it that, somewhere out there, there is actually a horde of people who legitimately believe this.

If you're trying to make some edgy stance against government infringement of civil liberties, you're being fucking retarded and counterproductive.

thanks in advance,
everyone

thanks again.

anyway, judging by their mention of the State Department and trade controls, I'd have to guess that this has to do with regulation of exportation of arms and nothing to do with the second amendment.

I'm not sure how it's justified to prevent access by Americans, though, besides obvious technical limitations. Does anyone have a link to any kind of official statement on this? So far the only statement I've seen is a red bar at the top of their page and NPR reporting on the red bar at the top of their page. I'd love to see some actual statements.

Re:Well there ya go

[anagama]

Exactly what munitions has Defense Distributed shipped? I could see this law applying to firearms, but how does it apply to a description of a firearm? If I emailed a photo of a gun to someone in Brazil, would I be shipping munitions? I think not. I'd be sending a photo.

If a company publishes schematics for a gun on the internet, is it sending munitions? For example: http://www.gunpartscorp.com/Manufacturers/Ruger-33474/Revolvers-40405/VaqueroSA-38354.htm

Re:Well there ya go

[Lakitu]

apparently the State Department agrees with you, as they said it's a possible violation as well. The Forbes article has been updated with the full text of their letter (with a relevant part here):

The DTCC/END is conducting a review of technical data made publicly available by Defense Distributed through its 3D printing website, DEFCAD.org, the majority of which appear to be related to items in Category I of the USML. Defense Distributed may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without the required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.

They appear to want to take a better-safe-than-sorry approach until it can be properly reviewed.

Re:Well there ya go

[tyrione]

Glad to see that the first amendment is so inviolable...

How the hell is this post insightful? The poster has the wrong goddamn Amendment, unless he's talking about whining all day long, peaceably, without insinuating a riot and/or panic, to publishing his grievances but last I checked this has nothing to do with individual manufacturing of what obviously will lead to military grade 3D printing weaponry. Grow the hell up.

Re:Well there ya go

[fustakrakich]

In that case, ITAR is a clear violation of the first amendment. And for your edification, I shall repeat that if you want to restrict speech in the USA, you must first modify or repeal the amendment, if you expect people to respect the law. Otherwise all bets are off.

Re:Well there ya go

[fustakrakich]

The first amendment does not allow for any exemptions. It explicitly states "no law".

Re:Well there ya go

[fustakrakich]

Information was taken down at the demands of the government. That is a first amendment violation.

Re:Well there ya go

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Suck another turd down your gullet, and cut off your mullet.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on. This is not about the First Amendment.

Arguable. I'm generally not down with the smelly hippie crowd, but people want information to be free, and frankly, they're right to think that way.

Posting on an open website certainly qualifies.

But should it?

This is early Internet encryption stupidity all over again.

Re:Well there ya go

[Greyfox]

As far as I know, the courts have always ruled that reasonable restrictions can be put on the first amendment. Of particular note, it's illegal to make available instructions on the manufacture of methamphetamine on the internet. In the quaint and curious era known as "last tuesday", it's been OK to pass laws to censor pornography, if said pornography has no "artistic value." Then there are those ITAR laws under which math can be classified as a "munition." Eeh, if you don't like it, don't elect a functionally retarded technophobe to Congress next time. I know you did, because apparently we all did.

Re:Well there ya go

[the_bard17]

The best part is when he's arguing with himself. Don't know who he is, don't care to know, either. Anybody who argues with himself (sometimes vehemently) is not a guy to be taken lightly.

Re:Well there ya go

[fustakrakich]

I know you did, because apparently we all did.

Yeah, it could be said that failure to take up arms against tyranny is tantamount to consent..

Re:Well there ya go

[limaxray]

Actually, it is very much so about the First Amendment. The whole purpose of DD publishing these designs was to not just make a statement, but a very political statement. They couldn't have nearly as effectively made their statement without releasing these designs, making it critical to their political speech and thus deserving of highest level of protection. Given this, I fail to see how the ITAR or any similar law would mean shit in a court challenge - remember the constitution trumps any lowly piece of legislation or treaty. IOW, the ITAR can go fuck itself.

PS - Censorship doesn't work on the internet

Re:Well there ya go

[Ungrounded Lightning]

+ 3rd amendment = right to print arms... in your home.

That's incomplete. Make it:

+ 3rd amendment = right to print arms... in your home... unobserved by resident government agents (or their spyware equivalent)

The third amendment was not just about the government using your home as a free bed-and-breakfast for their army, but about preventing such government-mandated parasites being positioned where they could continuously spy on your activities at home. "Quartering troops" is an end-run around the "man's home is his castle" doctrine of English Common Law - or the Fourth Amendment protections. It is one of the places the Supreme Court found an implied "right to privacy" in the (amended) Consitiution.

I'm waiting for a case where the Third Amendment is used as an argument against government spyware, which is the electronic equivalent of quartering troops.

Re:Well there ya go

[J'raxis]

And the law you reference violates the First Amendment, so this has everything to do with it.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we indict Eric Holder for providing non-automatic and semi-automatic firearms to Mexico?

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Nazis,

I never signed ITAR.

Thank you for your interest in DEFCAD.

Love,

Cody.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw you, ass! I am not polite.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, Kim Dotcom and Pirate Bay are on the job. So the files are already hosted outside the country. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/05/09/143206/printable-gun-downloads-top-100k-in-2-days-thanks-to-kim-dotcom?sdsrc=rel

Re:Well there ya go

[khallow]

This is not about the First Amendment. What they were doing was a brazen violation of ITAR

While technically correct, I disagree on its relevance to the First Amendment. ITAR is one of the more egregious violations of the First Amendment by the US federal government today. I don't understand how one can get such sprawling restrictions on speech and information for ITAR covered subjects (the US Munitions List which includes rocketry and encryption, BTW) when the First Amendment is such a broad ban on such regulation. But it happened.

And it is remarkably harmful to US competitiveness in areas subject to the law, such as aerospace (a foreign student can study aerospace openly in college, which has an exemption from ITAR, but they need a hard to get green card in order to work in aerospace due to ITAR).

Should Defense Distributed decide to contest this in court, I would contribute to their defense fund.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on. This is not about the First Amendment.

Yes it is.

What they were doing was a brazen violation of ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) which explicitly prohibit the sharing by US individuals/entities of technical data pertaining to defense articles (i.e. those items that appear on the US Munitions List) with foreign entities.

Which fucking tramples the first amendment, therefore is unconstitutional.

Fortunately, the supreme court, paragon of lawful justice it is, will be stepping in to stop enforcement of ITAR any minute now. Rule of law my sorry ass.

Re:Well there ya go

[khallow]

Exactly what munitions has Defense Distributed shipped? I could see this law applying to firearms, but how does it apply to a description of a firearm? If I emailed a photo of a gun to someone in Brazil, would I be shipping munitions? I think not. I'd be sending a photo.

I imagine the photo would have to be sufficiently detailed that it could contribute to design and construction of similar weapons (perhaps a sequence of pictures of gun cleaning procedures). The law is that broad.

The State Department isn't going to go after anyone with an email account and a digital camera, but I think they will go after government agencies and contractors that happen to do such things. Here's a story I heard from one of the people involved. I wrote this comment:

When I worked at JP Aerospace in Sacramento (2006-2009), this was a problem for us. JP Aerospace is a non-profit aerospace research group that currently launches mostly high altitude experimental, unmanned balloons. It also does balloon-based rocketry (the part that fell afoul of ITAR, so I understand).

At one point before my time, Jim âoeJ.P.â Powell had invited a school group from what I understand was Poland to visit the JP Aerospace facilities. This group was sponsored by the Department of State, who I dimly recall, had arranged the visit as part of a larger tour of places of scientific and technological interest.

The trip was canceled by another part of the Department of State, the part that handles ITAR. The only thing J.P. got was an apology.

The link above is to another story of the harm coming from ITAR.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

The Constitution takes precedent over any laws passed by Congress.

Instructions and specifications about a weapon you created falls under freedom of speech and press and therefore any prior restraint or restriction on such expressions are unconstitutional.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

So wouldn't this make the highly technical diagrams and what-not on Wikipedia for various sorts of ammunition fall afoul of ITAR as well due to Category III?

Re:Well there ya go

[sethradio]

Amen.

Re:Well there ya go

[sethradio]

Not for Democrats. They just claim that thy need it.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the US constitution, treaties rank almost equal to it, way above ordinary legislation or individual state rights.
That's why your politicians are careful about what treaties they sign.

Re:Well there ya go

[glwtta]

Or to peaceably assemble them, I guess.

Re:Well there ya go

[Sloppy]

This is a zip gun not some wonder weapon. How the hell is this a defense article?

Because zipping (compressing) the ciphertext prior to encrypting it, makes plaintext attacks harder. Remember what we did to PRZ a couple decades ago?

This time, I want the T-shirt with the barcode machine readable plans on it. Who's making it? I'll buy two; one for me and one to be given to the first non-American who replies saying they want one. I'll need your postal address. But hold it, first things first: who's making the T-shirt?

Re:Well there ya go

[shutdown -p now]

Merely registering guns and ammo does not, by itself, restrict the ability to use them. It just means that the government can track you down when you do so.

Re:Well there ya go

[shutdown -p now]

explicitly prohibit the sharing by US individuals/entities of technical data pertaining to defense articles (i.e. those items that appear on the US Munitions List) with foreign entities.

You should maybe go to Wikipedia and tell them that. Or just go ahead and start requests for deletion on all firearm articles. After all, they do meticulously list technical data (e.g. caliber and action) for most firearms.

Re:Well there ya go

[julesh]

it will be interesting to see how two pieces of contradictory legislation hold up against each other.

Not especially. Such things are generally settled now -- the newer legislation supersedes the older, except where the older has constitutional effect.

Re:Well there ya go

[julesh]

The first amendment covers distribution of instructions for performing an act, whether that act is legal or not.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, by "reviewing it", I would rather think this:

"We cannot find anything in particular wrong with it at first glance, we need to take a more careful look so we can find something that will stick."

This AC works in industry with the DoD. ITAR is no laughing matter. There's traps and pitfalls all over the place. It's so bad, companies hire employees whose entire job is keeping tabs on ITAR compliance.

For example: We need to send an instruction manual for a commercial product with a potential for DoD use to a subcontractor. This document is downloadable on the Internet. So one of our engineers gives a printed copy to them and it turns out one of their other contracts is for a Canadian company. A representative for that company has a small office in the building for when he comes to visit a couple times a year.

That's an ITAR violation.

Re:Well there ya go

[floodo1]

the real quote is infinitely better. chaos will find a way against even tyranny.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Bollocks that's just because you don't understand the sarcasm and the swearing you wanker.

Re:Well there ya go

[AmiMoJo]

Registration is about making you responsible for the use of your guns and ammo. If you own a lethal weapon you have a responsibility to take care of it.

Re:Well there ya go

[crutchy]

maybe typically they do, but TPPA and ITAR aren't your everyday pieces of legislation. i think ITAR would probably overrule in some cases simply because DoD could slap some kind of national security excuse on cases they oppose

Re:Well there ya go

[jcr]

Right, because if we let foreigners know how to make a gun out of materials that are only good for a dozen rounds before they disintegrate, they might eventually learn how to make guns out of steel.

Oh, wait...

-jcr

Re:Well there ya go

[jcr]

and any act of congress that contradicts the constitution is no law at all. It's a usurpation.

-jcr

Re:Well there ya go

[julesh]

ITAR may overrule other legislation as it is I believe an implementation of an international treaty (?) and such things are held to have a kind of quasi-constitutional effect.

Re:Well there ya go

[Stuarticus]

And tp the people who tell you you're not allowed to shoot people! I mean what's the point in being able to bear arms if you're not allowed to shoot whoever you want with them? Wake up sheeple, contact your congresscritter, etc.

Re:Well there ya go

[RivenAleem]

Assemble them from pieces, surely?

Re:Well there ya go

[T.E.D.]

I think I like him best when he is English. At least he tends to be polite then.

That's easy to fix; just say something nice about Chelsea.

Re:Well there ya go

[jythie]

200+ years of court cases disagree. The original debates when drafting the bill of rights also disagree. Many of the delegates were quite clear that they did not intend or believe the language was absolute. There was quite a bit of 'well of course we didn't mean XYZ, that is just common sense' language.

Besides, this is an export issue, not just a speech issue. It could be argued that such rules derive from the references to treason in the constitution, which are generally considered to trump the bill of rights.

Re:Well there ya go

[jythie]

Having also worked for companies that fell under ITAR's umbrella....

We were too small for a dedicated expert, but did have a lawyer on retainer who reviewed various releases and worked with regulators to make sure we were in compliance.

Re:Well there ya go

[T.E.D.]

1. That's just not true. The courts have repeatedly ruled that there are in fact limits to the 1st ammendment. There's a nice long wikipedia page on the subject for you to peruse if you don't belive me.
2. ITAR isn't (supposed to be) a regulation of speech, but rather a regulation of international commerce. The US government most certianly does have the right to do that (although I suppose you could try to argue that an export prohibition amounts to an export tarrif, which would be unconstitutional. I doubt it would fly, but you could try)

Re:Well there ya go

[MachineShedFred]

Sorry, the Constitution trumps any treaty ratified by the Senate, or the Senate just violated their oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

This is clearly a case of the Federal government abridging free speech, so it is exactly about the First Amendment.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't mean the jack booted thugs won't kill you for breaking it.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

It is obviously not a "defense article" but it might be considered technical data.

http://pe.usps.com/text/imm/immc5_017.htm

You don't have to mail it. If the photo is sitting on your desk and that non US friend walked by your desk, you just exported it as well.

Try working at a aerospace supplier someday and discover the wonderful world of export compliance and dual use items.

Re:Well there ya go

[LanMan04]

Registering guns does not reduce your right to bear or shoot guns. At all.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Incredibly true. Spending money is now considered free speech, but speaking is now considered a munition.

Re:Well there ya go

[fustakrakich]

It does not matter what law's intentions are. If it puts any restriction on speech, then it is in violation, despite what the rubber stamping judges have done over the years. Legally limiting speech in the USA requires another amendment to the constitution, not just tacking on 'interpretations' on the existing law, which I repeat, is quite specific, unlike the 4th, with the weasel word 'unreasonable'.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

A zip gun hardly qualifies as munitions. I am a US citizen and they are preventing me from seeing this. If the US maintained control over the Internet instead of giving it away, then the US could simply block the information from going to other countries. Oh that's right, Obama gave them control.

International treaties do not apply to US citizens if they are in conflict with ANY of the US constitution. This is rulled upon by SCOTUS in "Reid -vs- Covert" (1957). Quoted in part; "Treaty does not confer powers not granted by constitution".

Re:Well there ya go

[fustakrakich]

200+ years of court cases disagree.

Political expediency.... doesn't make the judges right, just corrupt. I read the law as written, and this one couldn't be more exact in its wording.

Besides, this is an export issue, not just a speech issue.

Doesn't matter. It is still in violation of a very specifically spelled out law.

It could be argued that such rules derive from the references to treason in the constitution, which are generally considered to trump the bill of rights.

Well shit, just rip the damn thing up then if they can override it and call it 'national security'. A government in noncompliance has no right to exist, but if we don't vote the violators out, then we deserve what we get.

Re:Well there ya go

[T.E.D.]

I'd say that you really ought to stick "IANAL" in there somewhere, but frankly the content of your message makes that redundant.

Try clicking that first link I supplied in the meantime. The education of a person begins with the first word read...

Re: Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that why they're printing arms- here I thought it was because of the constitutional right to T-shirts- You know the right to Bare Arms

Re:Well there ya go

[fustakrakich]

The law has become irrelevant, applies only to people who can't buy their way out. I'm telling you that you don't need to be a chicken to recognize an egg.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Second protects the first. Give up the second, the first is lost, too.

Re:Well there ya go

[BasilBrush]

Now tell that to the people who want to register and restrict guns, and / or restrict ammo. Especially the latter.

I'm one of those...

They have said in so many words: you have the right to bear arms, but not to shoot them.

No, I've never said that, nor heard anyone else say it. Nor has Google.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22you+have+the+right+to+bear+arms,+but+not+to+shoot+them%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=YSqNUZ_vLNCJhQeKwoCAAg&safe=strict

Will you please stop making shit up.

Re:Well there ya go

[Jane Q. Public]

"Merely registering guns and ammo does not, by itself, restrict the ability to use them."

Quote myself: "register and restrict".

I agree that technically, registration per se does not restrict, but on the other hand, I've never seen it done in the U.S. in a manner that was not intended to restrict. If not immediately, then later.

Re:Well there ya go

[Jane Q. Public]

"Registration is about making you responsible for the use of your guns and ammo. If you own a lethal weapon you have a responsibility to take care of it."

If only that were true.

In practice, it (A) isn't generally used that way, and (B) is ineffective at ensuring anything of the sort, even when it is used that way.

Re:Well there ya go

[shutdown -p now]

I agree that technically, registration per se does not restrict, but on the other hand, I've never seen it done in the U.S. in a manner that was not intended to restrict. If not immediately, then later.

Washington State has registration of handguns purchased from licensed dealers (for private sales it's voluntary to register). It's also one of the most free states with respect to handguns, with unrestricted open carry and shall-issue concealed carry, and extending the right to own and carry firearms to any legal resident of the state (not just citizens).

Re:Well there ya go

[Jane Q. Public]

"Registering guns does not reduce your right to bear or shoot guns. At all."

What a naive -- and history inaccurate -- point of view.

First, though, I would like to point out that I did not write "register OR restrict", I wrote "register AND restrict". The difference makes your comment rather moot.

But second, while the excuse for registration has always been to ensure proper and responsible use, in practice the actual use of registration has often -- almost invariably, in fact -- ended up being to restrict. In fact, in states and towns where gun bans have been tried, gun registrations were the main information tool used to find the owners of banned guns so they could be confiscated. (And yes, it has happened, right here in the U.S., more than once. Look it up.)

Re:Well there ya go

[Jane Q. Public]

"No, I've never said that, nor heard anyone else say it. Nor has Google."

I suppose I should have stated up front that the context of my comment was the United States. And I have, in complete honesty, have heard statements to that exact effect on television, and read them in the newspaper.

Re:Well there ya go

[LanMan04]

But second, while the excuse for registration has always been to ensure proper and responsible use, in practice the actual use of registration has often -- almost invariably, in fact -- ended up being to restrict.

Yes, JUST LIKE CARS. Dangerous items should be registered so as to keep them out of the hands of crazies/incapable people.

Re:Well there ya go

[Jane Q. Public]

"Washington State has registration of handguns purchased from licensed dealers (for private sales it's voluntary to register). It's also one of the most free states with respect to handguns, with unrestricted open carry and shall-issue concealed carry, and extending the right to own and carry firearms to any legal resident of the state (not just citizens)."

You don't know a lot about Washington State, do you?

I had cause to research firearms laws in the West and Midwest a while back.

Washington State does not require registration of firearms. At all. And while it is a shall-issue state, there are restrictions on concealed carry.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. I agree, it SHOULD be the 1st amendment.

Re:Well there ya go

[Jane Q. Public]

"Yes, JUST LIKE CARS. Dangerous items should be registered so as to keep them out of the hands of crazies/incapable people."

(A) you just contradicted your earlier statement by admitting I was right, and (B) registration is tragically ineffective for actually accomplishing that, for firearms AND for cars.

Re:Well there ya go

[shutdown -p now]

You don't know a lot about Washington State, do you?

I live here, and own over a dozen firearms, including four handguns. I also have a WA CPL.

Washington State does not require registration of firearms. At all.

Have you ever purchased a handgun at the dealer in Washington State?

Like I said, the registration is only for handguns, and only when you purchase them from a dealer. When that happens, they make you fill a separate state form (distinct from 4473), which the dealer is then required to mail to Olympia. There's no specific provisions on what happens on it then (unlike 4473 forms, which the ATF legally cannot compile into a dababase), and the general assumption is that they're retained indefinitely, effectively creating a single centralized registry.

The law in question is RCW 9.41.110, specifically:

" (9)(a) A true record in triplicate shall be made of every pistol sold, in a book kept for the purpose, the form of which may be prescribed by the director of licensing and shall be personally signed by the purchaser and by the person effecting the sale, each in the presence of the other, and shall contain the date of sale, the caliber, make, model and manufacturer's number of the weapon, the name, address, occupation, and place of birth of the purchaser and a statement signed by the purchaser that he or she is not ineligible under RCW 9.41.040 to possess a firearm.

          (b) One copy shall within six hours be sent by certified mail to the chief of police of the municipality or the sheriff of the county of which the purchaser is a resident; the duplicate the dealer shall within seven days send to the director of licensing; the triplicate the dealer shall retain for six years."

You should review the results of your research, especially if you've actually made any actions or decisions based on them...

And while it is a shall-issue state, there are restrictions on concealed carry.

What state doesn't have restrictions on carry? At the very least there are federal restrictions on carrying firearms in general. Most states also ban carry on some premises (typically bars and other venues primarily serving alcohol, courts and schools). Washington does not differ from other gun-liberal states in that regard.

Re:Well there ya go

[LanMan04]

(a) Sorry, no. Registration does not affect your rights/ability to own or shoot a gun UNLESS you're not supposed to have one in the first place, just like backgrounds checks do now. Unless you're advocating for an/all people to be able to own a gun, you are incorrect.

Also, assuming you (yes, YOU) are legally allowed to purchase a gun, registration would make 0 difference in your ability to own/fire a gun.

(b) Seeing as there is no registration for firearms in the US, I fail to see how you can reach that conclusion. Secondly, registering of cars/licensing of drivers works pretty damn well. Get pulled over without a license, go to jail. Get pulled over in a car that's not registered to you (i.e. stolen), go to jail.

Re:Well there ya go

[oldstrat]

But second, while the excuse for registration has always been to ensure proper and responsible use, in practice the actual use of registration has often -- almost invariably, in fact -- ended up being to restrict.

Yes, JUST LIKE CARS. Dangerous items should be registered so as to keep them out of the hands of crazies/incapable people.

Like hammers

Re:Well there ya go

[LanMan04]

Please compare the kinetic energy of a swung hammer vs a speeding car. I'll wait.

Re:Well there ya go

[Jane Q. Public]

"The law in question is RCW 9.41.110, specifically:"

That's not gun registration! It's just a record of the sale. NOT the same thing at all. Admittedly, it's getting alarmingly close, but it's simply not gun registration.

But registration requires you to register or get a permit for all new guns you purchase. It's not just making a record of a sale from a dealer.

You should review the results of your own research. Or at least learn what gun registration is.

"What state doesn't have restrictions on carry?"

Way to change the goalposts. You said Washington has "unrestricted" concealed carry. Bullshit. You can't carry in any place where alcohol is served for consumption, for example. That excludes most bars, nightclubs, and restaurants. It's very FAR from "unrestricted". Whether other states are restricted (and yes, there are some that are not) is beside the point, because it has nothing to do with your comment.

And Federal law has nothing to do with whether States restrict concealed carry.

Re:Well there ya go

[Jane Q. Public]

"Sorry, no. Registration does not affect your rights/ability to own or shoot a gun UNLESS you're not supposed to have one in the first place, just like backgrounds checks do now. Unless you're advocating for an/all people to be able to own a gun, you are incorrect."

Sorry, but the sentence you are replying to was about your own comment, not about registration, and it remains correct.

But in addition, registration CAN and DOES cause innocent people to get killed. Like the case of the woman who applied for a gun permit because her ex-husband was stalking her... and he killed her before the waiting period was over. (There have been quite a few cases like that, actually.)

When you add to that the fact that registration has demonstrably been grossly ineffective at its stated purpose, a rational person can only conclude that it's bad law.

"(b) Seeing as there is no registration for firearms in the US, I fail to see how you can reach that conclusion. Secondly, registering of cars/licensing of drivers works pretty damn well. Get pulled over without a license, go to jail. Get pulled over in a car that's not registered to you (i.e. stolen), go to jail."

You are displaying your ignorance here. Many states in the U.S. have firearms registration. There just aren't many Federal laws in that regard (though there are a few, for certain kinds of firearms).

"Secondly, registering of cars/licensing of drivers works pretty damn well. Get pulled over without a license, go to jail."

WHOOSH... right over your head, eh? My point was that auto registration is not effective at keeping dangerous drivers off the street... any more than gun registration has been effective at keeping criminals from owning guns. It's ONLY a restriction on law-abiding citizens. The criminals don't give a damn.

Re:Well there ya go

[shutdown -p now]

That's not gun registration! It's just a record of the sale. NOT the same thing at all. Admittedly, it's getting alarmingly close, but it's simply not gun registration.
But registration requires you to register or get a permit for all new guns you purchase. It's not just making a record of a sale from a dealer.

Oh, I see. So when NRA was whining that universal background checks equals gun registry, they were lying through their teeth?

Anyway, I was being very explicit. I said that it is a registry of all handguns purchases from a dealer, which is exactly what it is. I never claimed that it is a universal registry.

Way to change the goalposts. You said Washington has "unrestricted" concealed carry.

No, I did not. I said that WA has unrestricted open carry. Which means that it does not have laws prohibiting open carry, and does not require a license for that. That's what the common meaning of that term is. Not your libertarian fantasy of absolutely anyone can carry absolutely anywhere.

You can't carry in any place where alcohol is served for consumption, for example. That excludes most bars, nightclubs, and restaurants.

Once again you're talking about things you don't properly understand. WA restricts carry in places where the sale of alcohol is the main trade. To be more specific, "that portion of an establishment classified by the state liquor control board as off-limits to persons under twenty-one years of age". Which is to say, you can carry in restaurants just fine, just not in a bar in that restaurant.

And it is a very reasonable prohibition - probably the most reasonable of them all, in fact. Restrictions on carrying of weapons in bars and other establishments serving large quantities of alcohol date well back to pre-Revolutionary era in US, and are based on both common sense and experience.

Whether other states are restricted (and yes, there are some that are not)

Name one state that does not restrict carry somewhere or to some categories of people.

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

learn your bill of rights

Re: Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a double standard. Liberals say depriving a woman the means to have an abortion is basically denying her the right to an abortion, yet they try to limit the kinds of arms we can bear but say, "You're still bearing arms."

Re:Well there ya go

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody who posts without logging in is given the screen name "Anonymous Coward". That is why there are hundreds of posts and they seem contradictory. I myself am not a coward, I just didn't want to spend 5 minutes registering to post a comment on a site I may never visit again.

Next Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sex toys manufacturers try to block 3D models of dildos.

Re:Next Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're really being dicks about it.

Re:Next Up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, acting like a bunch of pussies...

The horse has left the barn...

[bfmorgan]

These files have been available for a day and have propagated to many other sites. So much for control.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[h4rr4r]

Yup, the internet as usual will treat censorship as damage and route around it.

Not that I would ever use those plans, I prefer my guns to be a heck of a lot more safe to operate.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[He Who Has No Name]

You know, you can always use printed parts to cast molds and pour aluminum parts from them (or even steel if you're brave).

You could also bootstrap yourself a David Gingery lathe and turn a barrel from scrap steel if you wanted.

Just saying.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[h4rr4r]

I could, or I could just buy parts or a lathe like a normal person.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[jeffmeden]

You know, you can always use printed parts to cast molds and pour aluminum parts from them (or even steel if you're brave).

You could also bootstrap yourself a David Gingery lathe and turn a barrel from scrap steel if you wanted.

Just saying.

3d printing is a tad more complicated; the printed objects aren't solid, they can have intricate internal structures. To do it all from molds you basically need to machine every internal piece anyway, which would be easier if you didn't even bother to start with a 3d printed version in the first place (just start with designs for actual guns).

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[h4rr4r]

He suggesting printing the parts then using those for lost cast metal casting.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[He Who Has No Name]

You spoil all our fun.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am totally flabbergasted that you took that the way you did. I've never seen anything like that before. Not even here.

And I'm really not trying to be insulting but I really am floored that anyone took that so out of context.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[Nadaka]

Note to self: experiment with a wax 3d printer 3d printer.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[Anonymous Coward]

PLA, a plastic often used in hobbyist 3D printers, can be burnt out for casting too.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[girlintraining]

These files have been available for a day and have propagated to many other sites. So much for control.

Who said this was about control? This is about sending a message: The current administration lost its battle for gun control. Badly. So they used their newfound internet "kill switch" powers that were meant to protect us against terrorists to send a political message. A rather impotent one, if you ask me. Rather than going toe to toe with Goliath again, aka the NRA and the Republicans, they decided to put the smack down on an out of the way website without the financial means to fight back.

It's a dick move, nothing more. Just wait until they find out that the internet also has recipes for how to build high velocity explosives, primitive shaped charges, napalm, and drones. Oh wait...

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[interkin3tic]

I'd argue that the horse that ran out was never the real issue, control over the barn doors is the real motive.

...although that comparison doesn't really illustrate much. So I'll say it plainly. I think the government is more concerned about preventing future, more effective guns from being distributed in such a way, setting a precedent.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[dean.collins]

I'll just leave this here DefDistDEFCADMEGAPACKV3.7 and LIBERATORGUNDEFDIST So Mr Glenn E. Smith ....am “I” an arms distributor now"?

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[game kid]

I read that as "a David Gregory lathe" and wondered when the Meet The Press host decided to enter the manufacturing business. :)

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[Anonymous Coward]

casting is awful for guns, unless you are trying to make something primitive and heavy like a musket (a bullpup style musket using sabot style flechetes would actually be kind of badass)

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[LynnwoodRooster]

Nah, just go hit Amazon and you'll find that with a couple of files, a drill, a hammer, and a jigsaw you can make your very own 9mm submachine gun. With parts you can procure at your neighborhood Home Depot.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[Nadaka]

I'm not specifically interested in doing it specifically for guns, but I might give that a try as well. I know a number of people who do castings in copper, silver or gold as jewelry or art the old fashioned way.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[Nadaka]

That site indicates that ash may remain in the mold, for intricate structures that won't be easy to get out.

wax should vaporize completely.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where can i get the liberator

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[Anonymous Coward]

When Hastur chimes in on behalf of the rest of the Old Gods, Anonymous Coward takes notice.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[quarterbuck]

posting to remove a wrong moderation

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[He Who Has No Name]

Huh? Castings are frequently machined down to finished gun components. Aluminum castings are often used as the starting stages of M-14 and AR-15 receivers.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[__aajfby9338]

Huh? Castings are frequently machined down to finished gun components. Aluminum castings are often used as the starting stages of M-14 and AR-15 receivers.

Almost correct. AR-15/M-16 receivers can be (and commonly are) made from aluminum castings, but M-14 receivers are made from high-strength heat-treated steel, just like the M-1A and M-1 Garand. An aluminum M-14 receiver with standard dimensions would fail violently, possibly on the first shot.

The AR-15/M-16 design has the bolt lock into a steel barrel extension, and the receiver mostly just holds the parts in alignment. The assembly of bolt, barrel, barrel extension and case head handle the very high chamber pressure forces alone, allowing the receiver to be made form much lighter and much weaker materials like aluminum or even plastics. This was one of the most revolutionary features of Stoner's design. The bolt extension and gas tube also handle a lot of pressure, though not as much as peak chamber pressure.

In contrast, the M-14 and other designs descended from the M-1 Garand (like the majority of non-blowback rifle designs, for that matter) have the bolt lock into recesses in the receiver. The receiver itself must withstand very high forces from chamber pressure.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[gl4ss]

That site indicates that ash may remain in the mold, for intricate structures that won't be easy to get out.

wax should vaporize completely.

it's possible to melt the pla away before casting as well, while hardening the mold.
of course, you would still need to machine the barrel.

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[jeffmeden]

And i suggested that non-solid, intricately concave objects don't work well as molds/forms for casting. You are welcome to try, but it's a pretty bad idea.

He's a witch...er...terrorist, waterboard him!

[Anonymous Coward]

And he was never seen again.

Problem Solved

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like this whole homemade gun thing is pretty much gone forever, since, as we all know, 3D printing is the only possible way to create a homemade gun.

Kinda saw this coming.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the problem is that he came off as trying to align himself with anarchists and Kim Dotcom, people our corporate overlords don't much appreciate. At least he left Manning and Assange out of it.

Prepare to be fucked by the long dick of the law.

Re: Kinda saw this coming.

[Anonymous Coward]

He jumped through the hoops and got a federal firearms manufacturers license. Nothing he has do me has been anything but by the book. He is cooperating now in the same way. He doesn't need to thumb his nose at the feds, the rest of the world can handle it just fine.

Re:Kinda saw this coming.

[Lawrence_Bird]

So... so much for free association?

Re: Kinda saw this coming.

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is his reward. He would have been better off releasing in onionland or something.

Chris Rock was right

[schwep]

We should control bullets and not guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw

Re:Chris Rock was right

[h4rr4r]

That would be pretty much impossible.
Bullets are easy to make. You could try to control gun powder or primers though.

I doubt either of those would work though.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[He Who Has No Name]

Primers and powder aren't too hard to make either.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be pretty much impossible.

Tell that to the Republican's (e.g from OK) and other assorted wing-nuts who think that it is already happening by way of federal agencies buying too much ammunition.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[h4rr4r]

They are just nuts.

Hornady CEO or pres the other day came out and said as much. Less than 5% of their output goes to all levels of government. This is panic buying and no manufacturer wants to invest in facilities and tooling that will go unused next year when the panic ends.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[h4rr4r]

Not really, but slightly more challenging than casting wheel weights into bullets.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[jythie]

Primers perhaps not, but high grade smokeless powder is non-trivial, and even shops with experienced people and good safety policies tend to blow up occasionally. A hobbiest could probably throw something together that would work in a gun that was expecting it, but making something that was safe and compatible with guns expecting modern black powder, while not undoable, is not exactly easy.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[gandhi_2]

I haven't been able to buy any .22lr, 9mm p., or .223 rem since the shooting.

Participation at the local USPSA club has dropped.

Gun prices are off tha chain.

Seems to have worked to me.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[h4rr4r]

You don't need high grade smokeless powder.
Old fashioned black powder is fine. You can use it in handguns and many rifle cartridges. Modern guns would tolerate it fine. Many of what we consider modern cartridges were originally black powder. Gas operated semi-autos will be the only real problem. More cleaning would be needed of course, but again not a huge issue. Many modernish rounds are still corrosive, like all the old russian ammo.

Not sure what you mean by modern black powder, all black powder is considered outdated. I guess some might call pyrodex or other similar black powder replacements that. Maybe you meant modern guns powder.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[h4rr4r]

That is because of the nutters buying it all up.

Production can't go up to meet demand, since this is a demand spike that won't last. That means producers are not going to invest in facilities and equipment that will sit idle very soon.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[nospam007]

"Not really, but slightly more challenging than casting wheel weights into bullets."

In this case, non-detectable by metal detectors, you would use granite projectiles and since these are 1 shots, you could even go with a plastic cartridge or none at all.

If you don't need it to look like a gun, you use some innocent form and half a dozen barrels printed inside.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[h4rr4r]

Get real, neither of those projectiles is going to work and you will end up a felon in jail for decades.

Metal detectors detect ferrous metal, which lead is not.

You seem to be exceptionally poorly educated on this topic.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[ducomputergeek]

I agree with this and it's annoying to someone who actively shoots on a regular basis and no longer can. I used to buy a brick of .22LR every couple months and at least 100 rounds of 9mm & .40 every month. I even gave up my range membership this year. No sense in spending $300 when there's no ammo to shoot. And I have a feeling that the ammo that is going to be produced this year is already spoken for by the panic buyers as people like me decide that maybe the next time we see ammo available at decent prices we should stock up in case of more panic.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[Anonymous Coward]

We do control bullets. That's what guns do.

OH! You meant the sale of bullets. Sorry, capitalism has denied your claim. Have a nice day!

Re:Chris Rock was right

[gandhi_2]

Did I blame anyone? I know how it works. Same way it worked when Obama was elected the first time. It's just life.
People who work 9-5 jobs can't be to Walmart fast enough to get the ammo, its all sold by the time it's put on the shelf.

What's up with "nutters"? Do personal attacks somehow make your thesis more correct? Or does it just play well in an echo chamber?

I understand there are people who don't like guns. There are people who don't like skateboards. Some people really like natural environments. There are people who refuse to pick up dog doo. such is life. No need to use stupid names for people you disagree with. It kind-of just makes you sound arrogant.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[CanHasDIY]

In this case, non-detectable by metal detectors, you would use granite projectiles and since these are 1 shots, you could even go with a plastic cartridge or none at all.

Indeed. The issue can be further resolved by redesigning the device to operate as a breech- or muzzle-loader does, with no cartridge whatsoever.

Incidentally, the original "gun" was nothing more than a hollow shoot of bamboo, filled partway with powder and partway with rocks.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[CAIMLAS]

Don't fool yourself. What do you think the whole 'point' behind making smokeless powder the explosive during the Boston Bombing is? They're going to push up smokeless power (and thus firearm ammo) regulation on the agenda, because they're quite obviously failing on firearm regulation. It's the same reason that DHS has been buying up all available domestic ammunition (at over 260 million rounds now!) and they're trying to ban importation of ammunition outright.

Doesn't matter how many guns you've got if you can't get ammo for 'em.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[tompaulco]

We should control bullets and not guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw

That makes sense to me.
Customer 1: "Hello, I would like to buy a case of bullets."
Clerk: "Yes, sir. Here you are."
Customer 2: "Hello, I would like to buy a bullet."
Clerk: "Yes, sir. Just stand over here while I call over an ATF agent."

Re:Chris Rock was right

[hot soldering iron]

Odd. This panic seems to have lasted several years now, and isn't showing any signs of abating. I haven't been able to get any ammo for well OVER a year. They might want to consider that this isn't so much a "spike" as a baseline increase in market demand. I'm about to the point that I may just go ahead and start making weapon parts to trade for ammo. Having blacksmith and machinist skills is awesome for untraceable barter transactions.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[LynnwoodRooster]

Actually, with the right guide it's pretty darn easy. I've done it, and the results were quite impressive - about as good as modern black powder. Extremely tedious and time consuming, but a good skill/knowledge to have!

Re:Chris Rock was right

[fnj]

You think so, huh? Sorry, you're - tada - WRONG. Thank goodness I don't line in your world where carrying around some pebbles or even lead slugs makes me a felon who is sent to "jail" for years. You're welcome to that world. The rest of us spit on it.

Now, about your claim. "Metal detector" covers a lot of territory, but in general they detect, er, like METALS, not just ferrous metals.

http://whiteselectronics.com/info/faqs.html#3

" 3. What types of things will a metal detector help me find?

All metallic objects. Example: gold, silver, iron, nickel, copper, brass, aluminum, tin, lead, bronze. Metal detectors will not detect nonmetal items such as gemstones, diamonds, pearls, bone, paper, or stone figures."

Re:Chris Rock was right

[hsthompson69]

gunbot.net

It's spendy, but it's out there.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[CrimsonAvenger]

What do you think the whole 'point' behind making smokeless powder the explosive during the Boston Bombing is?

Umm, no.

The Boston Bombing was done with Black Powder, NOT Smokeless Powder.

Black Powder is what they use in things like fireworks (yes, there are alternatives in use even for that, but it's the way to bet), Civil War reenactors' muskets and revolvers (and cannon), that sort of thing.

Smokeless powder is, well, smokeless, or nearly so. Look at the videos of the Boston Bombing, watch the big cloud of white smoke coming from the bomb, and tell me again how it was made with smokeless powder....

Re:Chris Rock was right

[shutdown -p now]

On the bright side, once the panic buying does end, there will be a lot of canceled preorders - and thus a lot of cheap ammo to go around. Just be patient.

(And maybe beat the panic Obama-gun-confiscation-Feinstein-UN-treaty-... drum a little bit more on right-wing blogs and forums - the more preorders we can get today, the more will be cancelled in a few months, and the more there will be to pick up for cheap.).

Re:Chris Rock was right

[Anonymous Coward]

Get real, neither of those projectiles is going to work and you will end up a felon in jail for decades.

Metal detectors detect ferrous metal, which lead is not.

You seem to be exceptionally poorly educated on this topic.

Read a history book.

The point of that type of gun is to get another gun. As in, SHOOTING a soldier or police officer, or some other agent of the state. It's even CALLED "The Liberator" after the .45 caliber single shot pistol famous for never being used in WWII.

Becoming a felon is the last concern of the welder. They've already decided "gotta do this, and might die doing it".

This plastic gun is not just a progression of technology, it's a political statement. We could have a revolution of home prototyping with printers without this particular bit involved at all. This particular bit came up as a direct result of the politics going on in the United States right now.

I presume, the feds are all pantywaste about it because represents it an uprising. Just like Kansas or Utah or one of the several other states passing laws that they will ARREST and PROSECUTE federal agents from trying to enforce unconstitutional gun laws in their states.

It's a big elaborate "FUCK YOU" to the feds, and it is needed in my opinion. Obama and his leftist crew need to be run out and supporters need to realize their political careers are OVER if they mess with the constitution. With luck, Republitards will figure it out too so we won't have to deal with a pile of bullshit from THEM when they get back in power.

Overall, a little squabbling on the Internet over stuff is much preferable to a shooting war. It's better that the politicaltards figure it out doing this stuff instead. The OTHER camp, the guys you don't see because they aren't twitterfags or slashnerds are just quietly arming up. Be afraid of THEM. They are the ones that are going to come out of the woodwork when the camel finally falls.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[h4rr4r]

I like guns, I own several.

The reason they are nutters is that they are buying up every round so fast I can't even get 22lr. No one is ever going to ban that, it is only scary if you are a squirrel.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[jythie]

Oops. 'modern black powder' should have been 'modern smokeless powder'.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[He Who Has No Name]

It's banned in a bunch of European countries. One .22 Short cartridge that was found on a doorstep in Britain freaked out the entire township and the bomb squad was called out. I wish I was joking - hit the googles, it'll pull up the article from a few years back.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[h4rr4r]

Name one nation that bans the sales of .22 rimfire. .22 short is not banned in England. People are idiots all over the world. They shoot it competitively indoors even.

Re:Chris Rock was right

[JeanCroix]

Incidentally, the original "gun" was nothing more than a hollow shoot of bamboo, filled partway with powder and partway with rocks.

And the Gorns have been cursing it's invention ever since.

wtf

[Aryden]

The real question is, when did we give the DoD control over domestic actions? The constitution strictly prohibits the military from acting as a policing force on US soil. So, who the hell gave them the right to take down a domestic website?

Re:wtf

[Zerth]

Disseminating ITAR-controlled information will get you nailed unless you can prove that only US residents can access it. Same thing happened with early web browsers that had strong(for the time) encryption enabled.

Re:wtf

[jeffmeden]

The real question is, when did we give the DoD control over domestic actions? The constitution strictly prohibits the military from acting as a policing force on US soil. So, who the hell gave them the right to take down a domestic website?

It's the State Department's export controls rules that they are afoul of; it's unclear exactly how the DoD is involved, if at all.

Re:wtf

[Darth Snowshoe]

ITAR. It's called ITAR.

Re:wtf

[He Who Has No Name]

It's actually (allegedly) the Department of State. DEFCAD got their bureaucracy wrong. Would be awesome to get the headline corrected.

Re:wtf

[SirGarlon]

I think Timothy is having reading comprehension trouble again. TFA I read says in the first two words of the bloody *headline* that it was the State Department, not DoD, who demanded the takedown. There's a big difference. The State Department has been in charge of export control regulations for a long time. You can check out the Wikipedia article on ITAR for the history; a quick scan says these regulations have been in place since 1976.

Re:wtf

[h4rr4r]

How is this primitive gun ITAR controlled?

Would information about how to make a shotgun from surgical rubber tubing, a nail, gas pipe and caps be ITAR controlled?

Re:wtf

[Aguazul2]

They were exporting weapons! Well, kind of -- programs that automatically create weapons when provided with a suitable 3D printer. So that probably comes under military export controls, like cryptography does in some places. I guess with the correct paperwork they could continue distributing these plans.

Re:wtf

[flayzernax]

They were exporting weapons designs.

I can assume the bureaucrats decided to shut this down now before it developed into a real industry that would compete with the current arms market.

If they let something like this slide. A generous estimate is that 25 years down the road a large syndicate of weapons designers could be operating out of the U.S.

Now I wonder how this applies to youtube videos on how to forge your own steel knives?

Re:wtf

[countach44]

ITAR is from the Dept. of State and according to the article it was the DoS and NOT DoD that acted from the header in the letter sent to DEFCAD: "United States Department of State Bureau of Political-Military Affairs Offense of Defense Trade Controls Compliance"

Re:wtf

[h4rr4r]

So if I tell you how to make a shotgun out of parts from homedepot is that ITAR controlled information?

They were exporting speech, that is it. Just a set of instructions.

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this primitive gun ITAR controlled?

Would information about how to make a shotgun from surgical rubber tubing, a nail, gas pipe and caps be ITAR controlled?

Yes it would. Next question!

Re:wtf

[Aryden]

Makes sense, though when I try to view the article, I just get Forbes.com and a grey screen. Can't view the original article for some reason.

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

Haven't you noticed that MacGyver isn't on the air anymore?

Re:wtf

[He Who Has No Name]

ITAR is one of the most nebulous, subjective, overbroad laws currently on the books.

You would be livid if you saw the full list of some of the ridiculous things that have been slapped with ITAR restrictions. Things like entertainment software (FS Flight Simulator), kids toys (explorer night vision goggles), and hiking equipment (various complex compasses and navigation aids that were allegedly too close to being useful for aiming mortars and artillery).

Re:wtf

[jythie]

The same way they have authority over physical arms exporters, they see it as being accessible from hostile states and thus it is an IP export. I would also not be surprised if some people there still see the modern internet as their network.

Re:wtf

[jeffmeden]

It's actually (allegedly) the Department of State. DEFCAD got their bureaucracy wrong. Would be awesome to get the headline corrected.

It was in Wilson's tweet that the "Department of Defense" came up, it's a fitting reminder that the subject of all this attention is a rather bitterly paranoid young man. Smart, no doubt; and driven. But a bit too paranoid for me to think of him as stable.

Re:wtf

[h4rr4r]

So how do we deal with modern electronics. Could I not make smartphones in the USA or show people how to make them?

They would make fine guidance systems for missiles. At some point technology obsoletes your law, this is one of those times.

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), in accordance with 22 U.S.C. 2778-2780 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR Parts 120-130), is charged with controlling the export and temporary import of defense articles and defense services covered by the United States Munitions List (USML).

USML: http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/ITAR_Part_121.pdf

http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/ITAR_Part_120.pdf

Section 120.10 Technical data.
(a) Technical datameans, for purposes of this subchapter:
(1) Information, other than software as defined in 120.10(a)(4), which is required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of defense articles. This includes information in the form of blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation.

Google is your friend. I assumed DEFCAF would not cave so easily unless presented with a proper legal justification. Although, they might just be complying to avoid large legal fees since the files are already distributed and they are not needed any longer to spread them.

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

Because all guns are ITAR controlled (22 CFR 121), and what they were publishing certainly qualifies as technical data (22 CFR 120.10). I'm somewhat surprised they'd do this, since it seemed that they were trying to set up a court test case. I'm actually happy this is happening because it'll probably be a good test case for ITAR v. First Amendment (better than someone designing a cruise missile, since our right to own guns is fairly well established).

Re:wtf

[idontgno]

Things like entertainment software (FS Flight Simulator), kids toys (explorer night vision goggles), and hiking equipment (various complex compasses and navigation aids that were allegedly too close to being useful for aiming mortars and artillery).

Things like non-trivial non-pre-backdoored cryptosystems for personal privacy, until somewhat recently.

If "cyberwar" becomes enough of a thing, expect "hacker tool" software to also get a big fat ITAR stamp. Hilarity and abortive attempts at Federal prosecution will follow.

Re:wtf

[gl4ss]

It's actually (allegedly) the Department of State. DEFCAD got their bureaucracy wrong. Would be awesome to get the headline corrected.

It was in Wilson's tweet that the "Department of Defense" came up, it's a fitting reminder that the subject of all this attention is a rather bitterly paranoid young man. Smart, no doubt; and driven. But a bit too paranoid for me to think of him as stable.

too bad he's driven mainly by publicity, not by practicality of reaching his stated goals. switching dos to dod does great for that. anyhow, they shouldn't have too much trouble scruffing it up. it would provide him with a great excuse to just run drink the donations though.

if he really believes giving even fine quality firearms to normal people would turn the power from the government to the people he's kinda stupid. mobs take power from organized government when the mobs feel like it - regardless of having guns(though they're likely to acquire guns for that, in the case the sentiments have really gone so far - and for the record usa is lightyears away from revolt).

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not ITAR controlled at all. That is completely laughable given one can literally grab all the files required to make themselves a nice 1911, which is a far superior weapon.

Re:wtf

[He Who Has No Name]

I don't know why the Department of State is bothering, then, because not just blueprints but 3D CAD files for numerous firearms have been in the wild for years. The basic AR-15 design is public domain, M-14 blueprints are available to anybody via FOIA requests, FAL blueprints are all over the world, and you can make an AK-47 with scrap metal, a hammer, and hand files... as evidenced by Pakistani tribes doing just that.

DoS is going to lose and lose badly. Which may have been DEFCAD's plan all along.

Re:wtf

[WaffleMonster]

How is this primitive gun ITAR controlled?

Would information about how to make a shotgun from surgical rubber tubing, a nail, gas pipe and caps be ITAR controlled?

Does a faraday cage around a computer (oven) count as "TEMPEST suppression
technology"?

Re:wtf

[mu51c10rd]

The constitution strictly prohibits the military from acting as a policing force on US soil

Slight correction...the Constitution only forbids the forceful quartering of soldiers in residences. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the US military domestically except in times of war or insurrection.

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

But this is an insurrection, now everbody can download and print as many guns as they need! They will out number any opposition. They must be stopped.

Re:wtf

[PoolOfThought]

MacGyver is still alive and kickin on Netflix! Just last night good old Mac made some plastic explosive from nitroglycerin pills and ammonia (or something like that... I dunno, I just watch it for background noise while I work). He use it to break some activist out of a russian mental hospital by blowing up the window bars. Hopefully they won't shut it down on Netflix now...

Re:wtf

[Carnildo]

Cryptosystems (even trivial ones) are still regulated, just not banned from export. I looked into this recently when I was considering releasing an open-source program that implemented a number of archaic cyphers: the only cypher that wasn't covered by the arms export regulations was ROT-13 -- even the Caesar cypher is covered.

Re:wtf

[PraiseBob]

He probably should be paranoid at this point. Every intelligence service in the world knows his name, and a non-trivial number of them want him to stop. The US govt and protection citizenship implies is likely the only reason he is still alive.

Re:wtf

[PPH]

And we are in a continual state of war. War against {drugs/immigrants/porn/terrorists/offshore banking havens/....}. Pick one.

Re:wtf

[flayzernax]

Didn't some European countries crack down on nmap for this very reason? Though how you "stop the trade" of open source stuff in a free market ... is kind of ironic.

Re:wtf

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You would be livid if you saw the full list of some of the ridiculous things that have been slapped with ITAR restrictions. ...

Don't forget Netscape itself was blocked with ITAR.

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

These are little better than zip guns and little different than the patent plans for things that're available via the USPTO's website (seriously). He caved because of the latter instead of the former.

They're playing this according to The Narrative and it's liable to bite them in the ass- and sooner rather than later.

Re:wtf

[daveschroeder]

It's not the DOD. It's the State Department Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, and it's about EXPORT.

Re:wtf

[J'raxis]

No, that information would be regulated by the ATF.

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

Inalienable rights. They're called Inalienable rights. As in free speech.

Re:wtf

[Khyber]

Then how do books like 'The Poor Man's James Bond' end up for sale, legally, in many countries where ITAR laws would prohibit such things?

Oh, that pesky fucking First Amendment.

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is, when did we give the DoD control over domestic actions? The constitution strictly prohibits the military from acting as a policing force on US soil. So, who the hell gave them the right to take down a domestic website?

The answer to your question is... this isn't the DoD. You could have just read the article and known that, but I guess it's easier to just post some reactionary drivel and get auto-modded to +5 instead.

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

Once things cross borders it's no longer domestic.

Re:wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait like 30 seconds - it is AdBlock stopping an ad and it will still go to the site after the allotted time has passed.

AC 'cause I modded.

Wait for it ...

[Tiger Smile]

Streisand Effect!

Re:Wait for it ...

[tolip]

There were over 200 seeders when I looked, minutes after he made the announcement on some radio program.

Re:Wait for it ...

[WGFCrafty]

Streisand Effect!

I think the point has been made well, they don't care if everyone has a copy... they care about treaty violations. Torrents? Who cares. US hosting companies? They do care.

Re:Wait for it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet no one has posted a link to download the files.

Very fast

[ClayDowling]

A couple of hours ago i downloaded and printed a design from that site. I also proved why this is a gigantic non-issue: getting a good print from a 3d printer is very involved. The machines need a lot of fiddling to get them working right. My magazine, which was supposed to be flat bottomed, had a distinctive curve to it that did not make for a good working part.

Re:Very fast

[X0563511]

Sounds like you need to use a bit of hairspray on your hotplate, you had lifting.

Re:Very fast

[Anonymous Coward]

My impression is that the gun which was fired successfully was printed on an $8000 printer, maybe a stratasys or something... Not a hobbyist machine like a makerbot or reprap. Those machines take a lot less fiddling.

hidden weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

This is good technology to make guns that can be disguised as something else. Once you have the basic "gun" component you just wrap it in whatever shell you want.

Re:hidden weapons

[h4rr4r]

Then you have made an NFA weapon. You will need a tax stamp and lots of paperwork. It will take about 6-8 months for you to get that approval.

Not getting such paperwork will mean you lose the right to own weapons and get to spend many years in a correctional facility.

Re:hidden weapons

[He Who Has No Name]

That would already be governed in the US by the National Firearms Act, as an AOW (Any Other Weapon). Making one without paying a tax is a 10 year federal felony.

Re:hidden weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that MAKING one was ok. SELLING one, on the other hand, would be an issue.

Re:hidden weapons

[He Who Has No Name]

Making, transferring, and selling (distinct from merely transferring) are all regulated by federal statute.

You can make without a license if you register the item and pay the tax. Only a licensed FFL / SOT can sell as part of business activities, and transfers between individuals usually must be conducted through a licensee as well. /IANAL, watch yer cornhole

Re:hidden weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

making non-NFA regulated firearms is fine. you have to get a tax stamp before you make NFA regulated items (AOW, suppressors, SBR/SBS)

Re:hidden weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

If it doesn't cross state lines, it doesn't consitute Interstate Commerce, and therefore the Federal Government doesn't actually HAVE authority on the subject per the 10th Amendment.

At this point, the BATFE might have a bit of a problem in select states for enforcing that aspect of things on the subject of the NFA.

Re:hidden weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

*BUZZER*

Wrong. While the notion that the "Liberator" is an AOW is currently making the rounds via the un- and under-informed, it is incorrect and you are an asshole for further propagating that bullshit.

The relevant definition of an AOW is "pistols and revolvers having smooth bore barrels designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell." The Liberator is chambered in .380 ACP. What part of "shotgun shell" do you not understand?

Re:hidden weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

Uninfringed means uninfringed. Fuck the ATF.

Re:hidden weapons

[Culture20]

If it doesn't cross state lines, it doesn't consitute Interstate Commerce, and therefore the Federal Government doesn't actually HAVE authority on the subject per the 10th Amendment.

Try growing wheat on your land to be used only on that land and see what the fedgov says about interstate commerce.

Re:hidden weapons

[gknoy]

I would not be keen on being in a situation where I would need to argue that in court, with my resources frozen and a set of frothing federal prosecutors on the other side of the bench.

Re:hidden weapons

[jafiwam]

Making, transferring, and selling (distinct from merely transferring) are all regulated by federal statute.

You can make without a license if you register the item and pay the tax. Only a licensed FFL / SOT can sell as part of business activities, and transfers between individuals usually must be conducted through a licensee as well. /IANAL, watch yer cornhole

Individual transfers, known as "face-to-face" or FTF are legal or not depending on the state. In my state, I can walk up, hand a gun over to someone that wants it without speaking a word, and walk off, and it's a legal transfer. It all depends on what level of lenninism has infiltrated your state.

Re:hidden weapons

[h4rr4r]

I never said that weapon was. I don't believe it is.

I was referring to his hidden gun idea.

DOS != DOD

[Anonymous Coward]

DoD isn't mentioned at all in the article. Its the Department of State that issued the letter.

ITAR

[blahblahwoofwoof]

International Traffic in Arms Regulations (http://pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar_official.html)

There's the underlying reason

Oh, don't worry!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that the fascist police state the US has become is ever more overtly assertive. The corporatist's political flunkies aren't using an ever-bigger boot on our throats. Our Constitutionally-limited government can't possibly have degenerated into an irredeemably corrupt Orwellian proxy for Wall Street!

Only a tin-foil hatted conspiracy freak or drug-addled anarchist would think that!

Wait...what?

Re:Oh, don't worry!

[some old guy]

The problem isn't government. The problem is the passive, benighted electorate that tolerates it. We, as a population, get the government we deserve.

Re:Oh, don't worry!

[Maltheus]

Only the people who vote for this government get what they deserve. Don't blame the victims, caught up in their wake.

Re:Oh, don't worry!

[schwit1]

Not voting is voting to be a sheep.

Re:Oh, don't worry!

[WGFCrafty]

This isn't always the case. Bush V Gore?

Re:Oh, don't worry!

[whizbang77045]

Be thankful we don't get as much government as we pay for.

Re:Oh, don't worry!

[Maltheus]

There are other options to vote for, besides the ones people keep going back to.

Re:Oh, don't worry!

[ganjadude]

sadly less than 1/2 of our voting aged citizens voted. I do blame the non voters just as much as the voters of idiots.

Re:Oh, don't worry!

[cold fjord]

The problem isn't government. The problem is the passive, benighted electorate that tolerates it. We, as a population, get the government we deserve.

To be fair, the media has its thumb on the scales.

News Consumer Study: Media Helped Elect and Continue to Promote Obama

“A large majority, 89.3 percent, suggested the national media played a very or somewhat strong role in helping to elect President Obama,” according to a summary of the findings. “Just 10.0 percent suggested the national media played little or no role. Further, 69.9 percent agreed the national news media are intent on promoting the Obama presidency while 26.5 percent disagreed. Some, 3.6 percent, were unsure.”

And 86.6 percent said they believe the news media try to influence public opinion and that they have their own public policy and political positions. This compares to 87.6 percent in 2008 and 70.3 percent in 2003.

Re:Oh, don't worry!

[meddle99]

Not voting is stupid. It is simply accepting the status quo. If all the people who did not vote pecause they did not like the parties' choices, they could elect thier own (probably better) choice. The two-party system stays in power because of people like you.Nowadays with early and absentee voting, there is no excuse to skip voting.

Re:Oh, don't worry!

[FooAtWFU]

They say that the whole premise of democracy is that the people know what they want, and moreover they deserve to get it good and hard.

Re:Oh, don't worry!

[VortexCortex]

The problem isn't government. The problem is the passive, benighted electorate that tolerates it. We, as a population, get the government we deserve.

What a load of BS. There's an entrenched single party system: The Democratic-Republican party. They split into Democrats and Republicans after the 1824 presidential elections, and now with their singular influence ensure no better systems of voting is ever enacted: Like having a primary vote, secondary vote, ect, to allow voters to vote for 3rd parties but after the 3rd party is eliminated the vote doesn't go to waste because it's re-tallied with your secondary choice... Nope, that'll never happen, not with the current two-party system. Any vote to a 3rd party is wasted in the current system, thus preventing even slight change. That the Democrats and Republicans pull favors for each other by voting on each the other's pet projects even after stating oppositions is further evidence that your votes can't matter. Those supposedly representing you, don't.

You're a dumbass if you think that voters control the government we have, they effectively have none. We can't even really vote with our feet due to international immigration laws, nor should we have to... The only vote I can imagine that the public has left is that of not voting with our fists. That we don't do so is a sign of fear and misplaced hope for change, not passive tolerance.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

— US Declaration of Independence

Just because we suffer while evil is sufferable doesn't mean we deserve to suffer. It means we're fucking prudent you twit. Hurry up and die, you're hindering the herd.

Re:Oh, don't worry!

[jimbrooking]

Actually, we get the government corporations and the NRA want us to have. The People, or as you call them, the electorate, are propagandized by Big Money and vote the way Big Money wants. The majority of Americans make their voting choices through TV, and the loudest voices there are paid ads.That's the truth, like it or not.

Re:Oh, don't worry!

[jimbrooking]

Voting the way the TV ads tell you to vote is worse than stupid and further entrenches the status quo. You can rant and rail about "sheeple" and idiots, but as long as Big Money rules the media, nothing will change.

Re:Oh, don't worry!

[MachineShedFred]

Not voting is an overt vote for status quo. Clearly you don't care enough to participate, so you have no problems with what is happening.

Re:Oh, don't worry!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not voting is voting to be a sheep.

Voting isn't enough to graduate from the ranks of the sheeple anymore. Now you have to get ACTIVELY involved in the campaign process.

Canvassing your neighborhood, making campaign phone calls, driving busloads of invalids to the polls - That's how you fulfill your civic duty nowadays. Otherwise you forfeit your right to complain.

Due process

[Okian Warrior]

Wasn't there something about due process in some document or other somewhere? Something about a warrant needed before the government can take action?

I can understand taking action as part of the legal process - confiscating evidence as part of filing for criminal charges, for instance. But can the government simply act unilaterally with no oversight? Has it always been this way?

Is it always "government does what it wants with no oversight, and the victim has to get the courts involved?"

Seems like that might be a good change to be included in the next constitution.

Re:Due process

[TubeSteak]

Wasn't there something about due process in some document or other somewhere? Something about a warrant needed before the government can take action?

I can understand taking action as part of the legal process - confiscating evidence as part of filing for criminal charges, for instance. But can the government simply act unilaterally with no oversight? Has it always been this way?

This may come as a surprise, but there are some things that you have to *ask permission* to do.
To almost no one else's surprise, exporting munitions (for very broad definitions of "munition") is one of those things.

Yea, they can take the State Dept to court, but it won't be an argument over whether the government has authority,
it'll be an argument over whether the CAD file falls under the definition of a munition (which can be regulated).

Seems like that might be a good change to be included in the next constitution.

The United States of America is unique in its complete lack of desire to modify or rewrite its constitution.
Instead, we rely on decades of Supreme Court opinions to shape the law's interaction with the constitution.
What we infer from our founding document, other countries regularly go ahead and amend into their constitution.

Re:Due process

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they can, and yes, it has. Power trumps right every day of the year.

Uh, no.

[neoshroom]

Uh, no, it doesn't. The first amendment is the right to free speech. The second amendment is the right to bear arms.

What you are missing here is that these files this guy is sharing are essentially just descriptions of shapes and therefore typically would be considered speech. The files then let you make arms (though really poor quality ones). He is sharing information though, not arms, which is why this has been transmuted from a second amendment issue to a first amendment one.

I'm still wondering though due to that Tao of Math line if I've been expertly trolled or not.

Re:Uh, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know it could be a standards issue. If they are stopping one group they must stop all. I don't see Lockhead Martin running open source weapons programs. They probably could not if they wanted to.

If it was a detailed instruction manual on how to build a cruise missile I'm sure it would be considered more then speech.

I think the key words here also are. "Without permission". They do not have permission to share "arms designs".

State Department is enforcing itself in order to stop a precedent from forming. Right now it seems pointless. But in the future it may be a big deal. Better put this fire out before it grows out of control.

*Disclaimer* I don't advocate limiting speech, nor do I wholly advocate control on exports of any kind, yet I am undecided if we should promote certain technologies publicly without penalties and deterrents for their misuse

Re:Uh, no.

[Prien715]

s/nuclear bomb/arms/

What you are missing here is that these files this guy is sharing are essentially just descriptions of shapes and therefore typically would be considered speech. The files then let you make nuclear weapons (though really poor quality ones). He is sharing information though, not nuclear weapons, which is why this has been transmuted from a second amendment issue to a first amendment one.

Arms=small arms and nuclear arms. Free speech famously has limits (falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) so where do we draw the line here?

Re:Uh, no.

[flayzernax]

A better alternative would be claymores. If he was giving out plans for 3d printing claymores + a separate download for the chemical explosive to fill it with. 3d Printed nukes are a bit in the future =P

Re:Uh, no.

[Jane Q. Public]

"... so where do we draw the line here?"

This does not come anywhere near the line.

You can buy books published by the U.S. Government on how to make booby traps, home-made bombs and explosives, and so on. They are military books. But the government has no copyrights in most circumstances, so they are available for the public to freely copy and distribute. And our form of government can't work any other way.

More to the point: the Government also can't publish books on a subject themselves, then deny the right of others to do the same.

State Department means Hillary Clinton, who is an anti-gunner. (No doubt this administration looked high and low for some kind of excuse to restrict this.) If it's restricted by the State Department, that means it's restricted for export to other countries. They MIGHT, just barely, be able to make some kind of case of that nature.

They would not, however, be able to restrict sale or distribution of plans within the U.S.

Re:Uh, no.

[jkyrlach]

Um, Hillary is actually not currently in Govt. any more; John Kerry now runs the State Department.

Re:Uh, no.

[UnknownSoldier]

> The first amendment is the right to free speech. The second amendment is the right to bear arms.

Due to the 10th amendment those shouldn't even be needed in the _first_place. Thankfully the founding fathers knew that government corruption would screw the people out of the rights they ALREADY have in the first place and _explicitly_ listed them to give them a longer "shelf-life".

Re:Uh, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whose permission is required, precisely? And what from what authority is that derived?

Re:Uh, no.

[ClioCJS]

Instructions for creating nuclear bomb are a google away.

Re:Uh, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary is out? Hmmm. But John Kerry is in? Oh.

Re:Uh, no.

[number11]

Um, Hillary is actually not currently in Govt. any more; John Kerry now runs the State Department.

Don't go confusing the rightwingers with facts. If they actually had any facts, they'd be insufferable.

Re:Uh, no.

[chrismcb]

I'm pretty sure many libraries have books that talk about how to make nuclear weapons.
Free speech might have some limits... but this isn't wear the line is drawn.

Re:Uh, no.

[He Who Has No Name]

Please stop using the "fire in a crowded theater" argument. It's dicta from the DISSENTING opinion in a case that has been long since superceded by a much better ruling.

AKA, it was a side remark in a losing argument in a decision that doesn't even matter anymore.

Re:Uh, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think nuclear weapons aren't allowed under the second amendment?

They are - they are arms (now you might need a Class 3 or be a SOT to possess a destructive device) and as such are protected.

The material with which you make them may be restricted because it's generally quite dangerous (radioactive and high enough grade to reliably go critical) but if you could otherwise figure out how to build one, there's no reason you couldn't.

It just happens to take millions of dollars and dedicated teams to create them (even with blueprints).

Re:Uh, no.

[elijahu]

I think you mean:
s/arms/nuclear weapons/g

Re:Uh, no.

[noh8rz10]

actually, the best example is pressure cooker bombs. i'm pretty sure that if you were passing out instructions to make one of these, especially in a jihadi magazine, you should expect a knock at your door and no first amendment rights, let alone 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 8th amendment... and heck, the third amendment, for good measure.

Re:Uh, no.

[flayzernax]

I would debate the tactical effectiveness of those short sited methods with you. Yet I'm worried I might get a knock on my door because of such a statement. It is no longer the kind of conversation we can have in public. Maybe for everyones benefit its better that we don't. I can surely agree with that.

What I can say though. Is that, we live in a world where such focus on random destruction and usurpation of a good society is wholly ruinous to our freedom and liberty. We had something great going, it wasn't perfect, it was corrupt and full of its own abuses. We could get it back. But not by exploding each other while bastards who are above the law are making the rules =/ The crazy wesborous could have their state, while the damn jihadies could have theirs. Maybe its an impossible pipe dream and the only end result to human social order is going to be a fascist peacekeeper like society, la Farscape's villains.

Hopefully the slip isn't much further past that. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. My original response which I just do not wish to post is what set me off on my rant.

Re:Uh, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope dood. You would be charged with so many voilatoins. There would be no protection for you. The lawyers you would get would tell you to say anything you could just to get a decent life term, or a quick execution. Because the torture you would be under while the prosecution was on going would probably be unbearable.

Re:Uh, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

The government pays companies like Lockheed billions of dollars to develop and build defense technologies that are for the exclusive use of the USA military and defense organizations and are under contract to keep the specifications under wraps.

Describing how to build a weapon that you were not contracted to build under secret falls under freedom of speech. It may require a court case to resolve this, but it is a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent to set to classify certain forms of speech as being off limits and subject to prior restraint.

Re:Uh, no.

[Macgrrl]

If I had mod points today I'd be tempted to mod you up simply because you seem to have embraced your bad karma rating :P

Re:Uh, no.

[ClioCJS]

Thanks. Ironically, my karma is actually excellent.

Re:Uh, no.

[MachineShedFred]

Limitations to creating nuclear arms isn't an information thing. The limitations are more related to obtaining materials of the proper quality and composition.

Smashing two lumps of highly enriched U-235 or Pu-239 together isn't that tough. Obtaining the highly-enriched U-235 or Pu-239 is.

Re:Uh, no.

[coinreturn]

Um, Hillary is actually not currently in Govt. any more; John Kerry now runs the State Department.

Don't go confusing the rightwingers with facts. If they actually had any facts, they'd be insufferable.

No. If they had facts, they'd realize that being rightwing is idiotic.

Re:Uh, no.

[DRJlaw]

Arms=small arms and nuclear arms.

It's interesting that you're willing to draw lines with regard to free speech, but incapable of drawing lines with regard to second amendment arms. Like it or not, semi-automatic handguns and long rifles are within the bounds of the second amendment. Nuclear arms are not. The second amendment does not support your supposed line drawing against machine-printed semi-automatic guns and gun components.

Free speech famously has limits (falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) so where do we draw the line here?

That old saw does not cut it. The pro-censorship crowd famoulsy assume that a line must exist for any given situation, and then seek to draw it wherever is necessary to achieve their goals. What is false in the digital files describing how to manufacture a machine-printed semi-automatic handgun? Nothing. You want to censor true speech. Trotting out a rhetorical flourish concerning false speech does nothing but demonstrate that you have no sound basis for suppressing true speech.

Whatever line may exist is far, far behind you.

-----
"Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution." - William O. Douglas, Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969).

Re:Uh, no.

[khallow]

That's irrelevant. Good examples and quotes can be found in such things. For example,

If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.

The above came from dissenting opinion in "a case that has been long since superceded by a much better ruling".

Re:Uh, no.

[45mm]

Um, Hillary is actually not currently in Govt. any more; John Kerry now runs the State Department.

Don't go confusing the rightwingers with facts. If they actually had any facts, they'd be insufferable.

Interesting, as I could say the same about "leftwingers" and their "emotional" arguments.

Re:Uh, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

We are not talking about nuclear weapons, we are talking about firearms. But if anybody needs to know where to draw the line, then I suggest the line be drawn at the following conditions.

1. A person can keep and bear any weapon where the operator of the weapon can determine with reasonable control, the individual target. Limiting hand grenades and rocket launchers as they would impact multiple persons that may not be the intended target.

2. A person can keep and bear any weapon which does not require additional people and/or skills in order to peoperly maintain it's storage, transport and use. In other words, nuclear, Chemical and Bilogical all require special equipment and other people with skills in order to manage them. Explosives also require technical skills and equipment to safely manage.

3. A person can keep and bear any weapon system that can be utilized by law enforcement. In other words, if the police can have it, so can you. And if you can't have it, then neither can they.

Re:Uh, no.

[BasilBrush]

"Don't go confusing the rightwingers with facts. If they actually had any facts, they'd be insufferable."

Interesting, as I could say the same about "leftwingers" and their "emotional" arguments.

"Don't go confusing leftwingers with emotions. If they actually had any emotions, they'd be insufferable."

Leftwingers arguments are a mixture of progress, empathy and facts.
Rightwingers arguments are a mixture of fear, selfishness and belief.

Re:Uh, no.

[Jane Q. Public]

"Um, Hillary is actually not currently in Govt. any more; John Kerry now runs the State Department. Reply to This Share"

Haha. Oops. Got me. I had forgotten that she resigned. But Kerry is hardly an improvement. No doubt Hillary is busy preparing for her impending failure at running for President.

Even so, it has no bearing on the central point I was making.

Re:Uh, no.

[Jane Q. Public]

"Don't go confusing the rightwingers with facts. If they actually had any facts, they'd be insufferable."

And don't go confusing Left-wingers with people who have a fucking clue.

I'm no more "right-wing" than you are, numbnuts.

Re:Uh, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, Hillary is actually not currently in Govt. any more; John Kerry now runs the State Department.

Most of what Mrs. Clinton did was work to restrict small arms sales abroad, while this impacts business in a big way it doesn't really hurt the average American's 2nd ammendment rights. She may personally believe you shouldn't be carrying a lot of the weapons that one might as a citizen, but that's not what she was working on.

She worked on keeping weapons out of the hands of really bad people, people the US government and US industry has been arming for half a century. I don't even really like Clinton, but I'm hard pressed to be angry about restricting small arms sales to people who then turn around and massacre their own citizens and neighbors.

Re:Uh, no.

[number11]

I'm no more "right-wing" than you are, numbnuts.

My mistake.

State Department means Hillary Clinton

And don't go confusing Left-wingers with people who have a fucking clue.

I didn't mention left-wingers. But now that you bring it up, I would have said that most left-wingers would at least "have a fucking clue" that Hillary Clinton didn't work for the government any more, that John Kerry was Secretary of State now They might say "there isn't any difference, he's just the same", but that's not the same as not knowing.

But ok, you're just some random nonpolitical idiot who doesn't have a clue.

Truly Absurd

[ebno-10db]

There are plenty of parts of the world where they don't have electricity or indoor plumbing, but you can get a local gunsmith to bang out a good copy of an AK-47 (the skills of these guys w/ simple hand tools amazes me, even if I'm not always thrilled w/ their customers). But design files for a plastic zip gun threaten national security?

Re:Truly Absurd

[a1cypher]

Well, I could see it being a problem simply because they are plastic. Think of all of the places where you have to pass through metal detectors for security. This "gun" will not set off a detector (unless the maker was kind enough to include the chunk of metal designed to set off detectors).

Desperate people may not care that the gun isn't very safe or usable; all it takes is one bullet to assassinate someone, one bullet to kill somebody in a prison, one bullet to hijack a plane (maybe not quite doable on a plane, but maybe with more than one person with these plastic weaposn?). It also would make an excellent untraceable murder weapon. Build gun which just has to fire one round, do your business, and then toss the gun into a fire where it can be completely destroyed.

Re:Truly Absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure places in the world where they don't have electricity or indoor plumbing are just teeming with gunsmiths and people that can afford hand made firearms.

Re:Truly Absurd

[ducomputergeek]

The DOD must ban the sales of all shovels: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/build-yourself/179192-diy-shovel-ak-photo-tsunami-warning.html

Re:Truly Absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

This "gun" will not set off a detector (unless the maker was kind enough to include the chunk of metal designed to set off detectors).

What, like a bullet?

Re:Truly Absurd

[Cajun Hell]

But if they're plastic, then shouldn't they not set off metal detectors? If someone's looking for metal, a plastic gun is irrelevant. That seems perfectly ok, unless .. oh no. Oh no. Oh please, god no. Please don't tell me people are trying to use metal detectors as gun detectors. No! OMG! Is this why they keep asking me to take my keys out of my pocket at the airport?! Holy shit, you mean they weren't really interested in my keys, and they were fucking with ME all along, over something that had nothing to do with me, since I never carry a gun?

That's sarcasm but also there's truth in it. At some point, someone got the bright idea that guns were always metal, so metal detectors seemed like a way to detect guns. And that was an ok hack. I don't blame anymore for that. But when gun tech moved on, and they started legislating that the old hack still had to work, that was stupid. All that does is create an expense for good guys (have to add un-needed metal to gun) and won't detecct an actual bad guy (since he has no reason to add metal to his gun). This is just more evidence that Congress shouldn't ever try to legislate tech, since they always get it wrong.

When metal detectors became obsolete as weapons detectors, we should have accepted and acknowleged it, not pretended they still worked and passed laws that everyone is required to join in on the illusion. Acknowledging it would have encouraged people to come up with better ideas and maybe made things safer. Instead, we got ... this bullshit: security theater where someone can literally be found guilty of a crime for not acting the part.

Re:Truly Absurd

[aminorex]

Indeed they are. Labor is cheap, and AK-47s require little more than some sheet metal bending and a steel rod to drill and rifle.

Re:Truly Absurd

[ebno-10db]

I'm sure places in the world where they don't have electricity or indoor plumbing are just teeming with gunsmiths and people that can afford hand made firearms.

From AK-47:

In some countries, prices for AKs are very low; in Somalia, Rwanda, Mozambique, Congo and Tanzania prices are between $30 and $125 per weapon, and prices have fallen in the last few decades due to mass counterfeiting. Moisés Naím observed that in a small town in Kenya in 1986, an AK-47 cost fifteen cows but that in 2005, the price was down to four cows indicating that supply was "immense".

Which suggests that the price of cows is really low in Kenya. $125 cash or 4 cows suggests a cow only costs $31.25. Maybe there's a good market there for importing beef (gotta be safer than that British stuff).

Re:Truly Absurd

[Culture20]

Maybe there's a good market there for importing beef (gotta be safer than that British stuff).

I say thee neigh.

Re:Truly Absurd

[stymy]

But it isn't even particularly high-grade or hard plastic, you're still much better off making a zipgun out of a heavy-duty pipe or something; that should be far less likely to blow up in your face. A standard pipe bought with cash is just as untraceable and far more effective.

Re:Truly Absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

Metal detectors also detect metal knives/box-cutters/scissors/skewers - not just guns.

It is possible to buy ceramic knives, although I believe the cooking knives have a metal slug in the handle to make them show up on metal detectors.

Re:Truly Absurd

[Cajun Hell]

Metal detectors also detect metal knives/box-cutters/scissors/skewers - not just guns.

Yes, and they also detect keys and coins.

It is possible to buy ceramic knives, although I believe the cooking knives have a metal slug in the handle to make them show up on metal detectors.

My point is that it's stupid to depend on people remembering, or forcing them, to add metal to things in order to show up. That's just telling the world how to circumvent the detection tech. Which means that if someone wants to go undetected, they'll be able to do it. If Congress is worried about ceramic knives, then they ought to be telling security people to work on detecting ceramic knives, instead of asking people to put metal slugs in them so that they'll become compatible with some obsolete tech.

My way of avoiding viruses, isn't to mail all@* something like "if you send me a virus, please pad it with whatever numbers will make its checksum become 0xDEAFBEEF." You'd laugh at me if I did that, but that's analogous to what we're talking about here.

Re:Truly Absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that you effectively have to be at point blank range with this gun to have any hope of killing your target. At that range you can do more damage with a sharpened toothbrush.

Re:Truly Absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

A bullet isn't that much metal. My belt, watch, and wedding ring don't set off metal detectors and they contain more metal than several bullets.

Re:Truly Absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

brb going to buy a shovel

Re:Truly Absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. Let's make plasic illegal.

Re:Truly Absurd

[a1cypher]

They are likely doing both. The full body scanners and X-Ray machines are probably meant to detect these types of non-metal weapons.
It does make sense though that they ask legitimate manufacturers to include a metal slug since it doesn't harm legal users and could increase the detection of illegal users.

 

Re:Truly Absurd

[Anonymous Coward]

If you bothered to look up the basic design of the liberator printed gun you would notice it requires a steel nail to act as the firing pin, and almost all fmj .380 rounds will set off a metal detector also.

Pretty sure...

[fyngyrz]

...most of congress, along with scotus, suffers from reasonable seizures. It's from the bill of blights, supported by executive disorder.

This is an outrage! I'm calling my congrssman!

[Anonymous Coward]

DoD Descends On DECAF

Fortunately my congressman is Goodlatte . He'll make sure they leave decaf alone.

Well I guess that settles it, the internet

[Grimbleton]

.... is now free of information on building a gun.

http://www.amazon.com/Homemade-Guns-And-Ammo/dp/158160677X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368132669

Oh hey

Re:Well I guess that settles it, the internet

[WGFCrafty]

Funny thing is it says it is frequently bought with "the US Army's improvised explosives handbook."

Who knew such a thing existed? Especially since the only thing we usually improvise is where to drop them :-p

Re:Well I guess that settles it, the internet

[TubeSteak]

Why fuck around when you can buy a copy of the United States Army technical manual on improvised munitions?
http://www.amazon.com/Improvised-Munitions-Handbook-Department-Technical/dp/B001O84GWK

Re:Well I guess that settles it, the internet

[gl4ss]

if the book is in a library(equivalent) it's exempt from the controls.

Re:Well I guess that settles it, the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

http://cryptome.org/0001/tm-31-210.htm

Screw buying it. It is copyright free. Download it.

AC because I modded.

That's not at all the point

[daveschroeder]

The point isn't that DOD thinks the files are going to disappear, and it doesn't matter anyway since the purpose isn't to "disarm Americans" or "keep the files out of the hands of Americans" or some other utter garbage.

There are treaties and various arms control export restrictions (ITAR) at stake, and US-based corporations or entities cannot provide arms in violation of these constructs. If this sort of thing is on the Pirate Bay or elsewhere, DOD trade control doesn't care.

Re:That's not at all the point

[Anonymous Coward]

So what the internet learned from this is to simply dump new releases straight into the torrent ocean, and simply announce them on a website hosted outside the US.

Problem solved... problem staying solved.

Re:That's not at all the point

[CAIMLAS]

What does this have to do with 'arms treaty exports'? As CAD files, absolutely nothing.

This is CAD files, blueprints. Don't let them fool you: it very much is about controlling firearm dissemination.

Re:That's not at all the point

[daveschroeder]

Yes, it is about "controlling firearm dissemination"...for EXPORT. That's why the State Department Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance is involved. If you've already made up your mind that the true motive relates somehow to American citizens in a country with as many privately owned firearms as people, no amount of logic or reason will change your mind.

Re:That's not at all the point

[jonwil]

The ITAR rules place restrictions on exporting certain things without an export license. One of the things that is restricted are handguns. ITAR also says that exporting blueprints and technical data related to an item requires an export permit in the same way that exporting the item does.

So by publishing blueprints to a handgun on a US-hosted web server without an export license, an ITAR violation has taken place.

Re:That's not at all the point

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be right. And if you are, then you should now also realize why gun-owners are so opposed to things like the UN Arms Trade Treaty.
Once treaties like that get in place then the various unaccountable government agencies get to use the excuse "hey, you know, its like we really care, or even *want*, to do this but, you see, we've got this treaty to abide by......."

Re:That's not at all the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they care about it being on one website vs. another? What's the technical difference? The law is about exporting, and if you're in the US and upload them to TPB, you're still in violation of the law.

The law is stupid, of course.

Re:That's not at all the point

[gl4ss]

What does this have to do with 'arms treaty exports'? As CAD files, absolutely nothing.

This is CAD files, blueprints. Don't let them fool you: it very much is about controlling firearm dissemination.

try to export blueprints to the patriot system.... haha.

of course the problem is that single shot muskets potentially count under the definition. though it doesn't count if the stuff is already in the library, so muskets are out.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[ebno-10db]

It's treason to plot the violent overthow of your own government.

Trash talk is hardly a plot. Absent specific and concrete plans to do what you say, there can't be any charges for what he says. Otherwise we'll have abandoned Freedom of Speech, at which point the overthrow would be a good idea.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[VortexCortex]

It's treason to plot the violent overthow of your own government.

That may be the case... However. Let me introduce to to a little thing we call US History.

Department of State, NOT Department of Defense

[andb52]

There is a significant difference between the two. For example, one is involved here and the other is not. The article (and the underlying letter) clearly explain that it is the Department of State that has taken these actions. The summary and headline must be changed.

Re:Department of State, NOT Department of Defense

[idontgno]

As should Cody Wilson's factually incorrect tweet. Unless he suspects the Department of Defense is actually the Bavarian Illuminati and the Department of State merely misdirection and puppetry.

Maybe that's why an egregious screwup is called a "wilson" in Gibson's Sprawl stories.

But as to the title, headline, and summary here? That's just Slashdot editorship in action, man.

Re:Department of State, NOT Department of Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that's why an egregious screwup is called a "wilson" in Gibson's Sprawl stories.

Well played sir.

--
“Jesus. That’s your word for it, huh? Christ, I know the guy...”

Re:Department of State, NOT Department of Defense

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be changed? Are you the boss now?

Publicity Stunt!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any actual information that doesn't originate from "DEFCAD" that anyone other than themselves is involved in this? We have the "full text" of a letter and information from DEFCAD. Normally one would expect a copy of the letter that at least looks somewhat official. Though "Glenn E. Smith" is mentioned in a few places as "Chief, Enforcement Divison", "Ms Bridget Van Buren" has nothing but a LinkedIn profile .. anywhere.

Plus there was no reason to "go dark" with the entire site, even if the letter is real, simply remove the "offending" material.

Sounds like a publicity stunt.

Re:Publicity Stunt!

[Guspaz]

According to the letter, DEFCAD was instructed to review everything else on their site for ITAR violations. If this is all legitimate, they probably simply decided to take the whole site down to be safe, rather than risk leaving something up that might get them into deeper trouble.

That said, the DoS is crazy if they think that this will stop distribution of the files... That cat is way the heck out of the bag.

Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[golodh]

It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to seize on the Amendments to justify their own short-sighted, stupid, destructive, extremist and anarchist hankerings.

Of course there are limits to how far you can push your first-amendment rights; there have to be. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution and scroll down to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who formulated the clear and present danger test for free speech cases.

How about all those would-be terrorists who can now print their very own pistols that will fail to show up on airport scanners if they (unaccountably) fail to put a big steel x-ray reflector inside the gun? How's that for 'clear and present danger? Feel good about sticking it to 'the man' and spreading 100,000 copies of those gun CAD files, do you? Irresponsible is the least one can say about it.

This is the reason neither Joe Sixpack or 'the man in the street' was put in charge or national security or determining whether this or that speech is protected by the first Amendment or not.

The only real problem is that it's too late now. The horse has already bolted, and every man jack on the planet can shortly print his own plastic gun ... and use that to highjack an airliner or something ... which is what a lot of them seem to want.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[He Who Has No Name]

You know... bullets DO trip metal detectors and show up on X-rays.

Unless you're planning on beating somebody to death with your plastic gun, it's going to be detected.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[Charliemopps]

The limits we set on the constitution are chains we put on ourselves. No matter how dangerous you think guns are... or the ability to make them easily... or even terrorists... None of them even approach the dangers of a government unconstrained by a constitution. Hundreds, maybe thousands may die as a result of unconstrained gun rights, I'll not argue that with you. But compare that to the Governments of Germany, Russia, Vietnam, and many others who've murder hundreds of millions of people, tortured even more. Committed genocide, destabilized all of humanity for decades... all because due to lack restraints on government and legal chains put on free people.

An armed citizen may kill a few dozen, but government could kill the world.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[Stormy Dragon]

See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org] and scroll down to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who formulated the clear and present danger test for free speech cases.

You do realize the "clear and present danger" test was originally created to justify jailing people for protesting against WWI, right? If George W. Bush had arrested everyone who protested the Iraq War, would you have been fine with that?

Thankfully, Schenck v. United States was overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio, in favor of the imminent lawless action test, although that doesn't stop ignorant people who think watching a few episodes of Law & Order makes them constitutional scholars from bringing it up over and over.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[wbr1]

Yeah. Good luck hijacking an airliner with a reinforced,secure cockpit door. And quite possibly armed air marshals. The solutions are NOT in the restrictions of freedoms. Those can always be ignored or bypassed.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you accuse people that try to combat CO2 emissions of being chicken littles. I'm also going to guess that you don't see the hypocrisy.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention 200+ very pissed off and ready to tear the next terrorist limb from limb passengers.

There is absolutely no WAY on this Earth, the passengers are going to sit idle while some fool waves around a plastic weapon of any type. The autopsy of the " terrorist " will likely find that plastic gun crammed so far up his ass they wouldn't find it until they opened his chest. . . . :|

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[hot soldering iron]

Don't have to go through the trouble and expense of creating a gun (and ammo) that's invisible to x-ray and metal detectors. Just make a cheap, throw away slingshot with a couple of marbles and you have the equivalent of a silenced zip gun that's invisible to detectors, for all of about $10. If you can stash some ball bearings inside an obvious metallic object (metal pen, etc...) now you've got high density rounds that will do a through-and-through on someones head or torso. The people of Okinawa learned during Japanese occupations that effective weapons don't have to be complex.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[1729]

It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to seize on the Amendments to justify their own short-sighted, stupid, destructive, extremist and anarchist hankerings.

Of course there are limits to how far you can push your first-amendment rights; there have to be. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution and scroll down to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who formulated the clear and present danger test for free speech cases.

Thing is, Holmes was wrong in that case.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[fnj]

It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to seize on the Amendments to justify their own short-sighted, stupid, destructive, extremist and anarchist hankerings.

It never ceases to amaze me how statist asshole pigs are quick to throw the constitution in the garbage to further their own fucking lust for power and oppression.

Well actually, it doesn't amaze me at all. This is just the same old millennia-old piggish agenda that is built into their rotten carcass.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[fustakrakich]

...scroll down to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who formulated the clear and present danger test for free speech cases....

It's a bullshit 'test'. The amendment makes no such allowances. To make it so requires another amendment to the constitution itself.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[chrismcb]

How about all those would-be terrorists who can now print their very own pistols that will fail to show up on airport scanners if they (unaccountably) fail to put a big steel x-ray reflector inside the gun? How's that for 'clear and present danger? Feel good about sticking it to 'the man' and spreading 100,000 copies of those gun CAD files, do you? Irresponsible is the least one can say about it.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that I need to think about everything I say, and consider whether someone might use what I say in an illegal manner? I'm not directly responsible for others actions. As long as I am not inciting them, I am not going to worry about what I say.
Can some things I say be used for evil rather than good? You bet, but that doesn't mean I should stop speaking.
And if you think me not saying something is going to stop the boogey man from printing a plastic gun...

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[Anonymous Coward]

The Clear and Present Danger test was obsoleted by the Imminent Lawless Action test (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action) and would not prohibit someone publishing instructions and specifications for a gun that may or may not be used in the future to commit a crime.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[sethradio]

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who formulated the clear and present danger test for free speech cases.

There is no clear and present danger. If someone wants to a oppose the draft, he has a right to oppose the draft. Oliver Holmes is in the interest of tyranny rather than of liberty. The draft violates the 13th amendment, anyway.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[floodo1]

Pretty sure the line isn't at trying to prevent you from distributing gun designs internationally.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[jcr]

Know who else cited Holmes to justify abuse of power?

-jcr

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[jcr]

None of them even approach the dangers of a government unconstrained by a constitution.

More to the point, a government unconstrained by an armed population will admit no limits to its authority.

-jcr

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there's only a handful of chicken littles like ManBearPig who are making shit tons of money from the scam. The rest of you are suckers.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[Stuarticus]

Oh jesus, he's got a catapult, look out! I've had a few "high power" catapults in my time I don't think any of them could put a marble through someone's skull, whatever you're smoking today must be strong.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[MachineShedFred]

I'm pretty sure that we learned on Sept. 11, 2001 that you don't need guns to hijack airplanes.

Sobecause you don't like guns, and you can make some weak shit argument involving terrorism, we should allow a terrible legal precedent and clear violation of the highest laws of the land?

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[Anonymous Coward]

So these guys are the first and only dudes on the planet to come up with a 3D printable design or any plastic type gun that will not show up on a scanner? Please man. The horse bolted 50 years ago.

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[hot soldering iron]

Watch Joerg Sprave on the Slingshot Channel on YouTube. He uses high speed cameras to illustrate sailing a ball bearing through a block of ballistic gelatin. Guess your "high power" catapult wasn't that high power, eh? I know I've shattered a windshield with a ball bearing and a LOW POWER catapult. Head injuries kill, even if they aren't a "through and through".

Re:Shock news: first Amendment has limits too

[Stuarticus]

Did you read the comment I was replying to Einstein? I've shattered a windshield with my bare hand.

Hash values

[Anonymous Coward]

Any1 Got the hashes for those files, Free them, I would love it. Both SHA1 and MD5 at least, please!

Re:Hash values

[Anonymous Coward]

The Defense Distributed file pack. Hashes:

MD5: F4784E3C4C6B6D851C3F2CFD8579B2A6
SHA-1: 3B733B62D8D3B08DE9BFFB94CDD308C18BF09BB0
SHA-256: 8B3247FE5145E87ABA5B91A6DFCA26193E5472C60AF279223CE5A92611A24D31

The Liberator. Hashes:

MD5: 26DE1E830AC58C078650B69C4D34602E
SHA-1: AA33BC73264B80B87D21FF8D56DE02EAECDA3574
SHA-256: 763927D34CE89B550A118E3522181FC434632D6D6188CB82E1612096A613C4AA

It's a ruse

[DnemoniX]

I absolutely do not think that this will end up being an ITAR restricted item. However, it does seem to provide politicians enough time to cram through some poorly thought out legislation creating an outright ban on them.

Re:It's a ruse

[MachineShedFred]

It also provides an incredible opportunity to turn a plastic piece of shit into a national headline, if not one that gets read across the entire globe.

Congratulations, State dept. You just lent a huge megaphone to some guy that really wanted one.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[Anonymous Coward]

When one has not the WEALTH nor EDUCATION nor PEDIGREE to live elsewhere in the world, there really is no other choice.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[He Who Has No Name]

You're assuming this wasn't part of the plan.

What pushes his ideology farther along the path, puttering away in semi-obscurity on his website, or invoking the full speed and fury of the internet's anti-censorship reflexes and spreading these files so far and wide they'll be easily available forever?

-1

[Anonymous Coward]

For free speech.

Re:-1

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the hashes: a veteran.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[X0563511]

Huh, someone should have told those folks back in 1775 about that.

Can't we wait for this tech...`

[Lendrick]

...to become a bit more ubiquitous before we start alarming politicians into making it illegal by using it to manufacture weapons?

We don't want 3D printing to become "isn't that how people make plastic guns?" to the lay public. It's too important of a technology, and given how potentially disruptive it is to the business models of a lot of large companies with a shit ton of money, you can bet that people are already talking about how to get rid of it.

So please, if you must design guns for 3D printers, keep the designs private until the public is familiar enough with the technology that they won't buy the alarmist "O NOES, GUNS" excuse that politicians will invariably use to keep people from buying 3D printers.

Re:Can't we wait for this tech...`

[He Who Has No Name]

The tech is very well propagated and entrenched across a multitude of industries and has been for years now.

It's not going anywhere. It's also much, much too easy for people to build at home.

Re:Can't we wait for this tech...`

[WGFCrafty]

3D printers were originally for rapid prototyping, there are companies who do not want them controlled, I would think that would make it a bit hard to easily control.

Its really not about the files

[Anonymous Coward]

Its about preventing the next guy from ever appearing out of fear.

Direct download link??

[zidium]

Here's the direct download link to all of their published files...

http://defcad.org/stl/zip/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip

Re:Direct download link??

[crutchy]

apparently the state department hasn't heard of the Streisand effect either

Re:Direct download link??

[number11]

Here's the direct download link to all of their published files...

http://defcad.org/stl/zip/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip

Also from The Pirate Bay.

This wasn't just a publicity stunt by DefDist, was it?

Re:Direct download link??

[J'raxis]

Here are a few mirrors to wreck the State Department's day:

http://www.jraxis.com/tmp/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip
http://www.eprci.net/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip
https://www.nhteaparty.org/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip
http://www.manchfreepress.com/sites/default/files/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip

Re:Direct download link??

[supremebob]

Oh well... might as well download this. I'm probably already on some government terrorist watch list for those couple of bitcoins I mined a few months ago :)

Re: Direct download link??

[Anonymous Coward]

> This wasn't just a publicity stunt by DefDist, was it?

That's the first thing I thought.

"We won't comply with the government, we'll make our own guns!"

"Hey, we're the government, take those down, please."

"Oh, no problem! We'll comply!"

I dunno, somehow I doubt it.

Re:Direct download link??

[Salgak1]

Anyone else notice DEFCAD's offsite links ?? Downloads via mega.co.nz ?? Looks like Kim Dotcom is having a little revenge on USGov as well. . .

Nevermind. THOSE are gone now, too. Pity the State Department doesn't realize NOTHING goes away on the net. . .

So. . .

DEFCAD Mega Pack 4.2 (Saito)

Operation This Will Probably End Badly ...

[PhxBlue]

... Is a go. Seriously, have the folks at the top levels never heard of the Streisand Effect?

If you own a 3-d printer, you are a terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

TPTB don't want you to have the power to make and trade designs for new and existing products IN YOUR OWN HOME! So, of course, right off the bat what is being smeared across the media? WTF! PLASTIC GUNS BEING PRINTED! ALARM! Soon the cow bell will ring:

"If you own a 3-d printer, you are a terrorist."

We are headed towards Star Trek's replication technology. Today it's plastic, tomorrow it's food and anything you could imagine, which would have a massive impact all over the world, especially in 3rd world countries.

If ST replication technology came about tomorrow, it would be the same thing, only more sinister, like rumors of dirty people in basements making evil devices beyond mere plastic so we must BAN all of replication technology!

You want to destroy slave factories like Faux-Con and put an end to sweat shops? Usher in the 3-d printers, continue to improve them and release newer, better versions.

You want to feed and clothe the world? Usher in ST replication technology.

The game is controlled, they don't want you to really have freedom, only the illusion of it.

Okay, you may return to your Cable/Satellite/Netflix and other forms of mind control and forget this post.

Do what they did with GPG

[Tracy Reed]

Compress the file then print it out in easily OCR'able format (QR codes, perhaps), then physically carry it out of the country.

"You can't stop the signal, Mal."

Re:Do what they did with GPG

[EaglemanBSA]

Compress the file then print it out in easily OCR'able format (QR codes, perhaps), then physically carry it out of the country.

"You can't stop the signal, Mal."

STL files are nothing but sets of vertices - 3d points. The Zimmerman defense is easily applicable here. MY guess - the DoS is about to have their asses handed to them. Whether the files do fall under the purview of ITAR is irrelevant - with its current form, ITAR's restrictions on the dissemination of information are simply unconstitutional, and cannot be enforced as 3d design and printing technologies become so mainstream that people are building their own with little to no experience.

Rubbish

[golodh]

Never heard of plastic bullets have you?

Re:Rubbish

[CanHasDIY]

Never heard of plastic bullets have you?

Never heard of plastic casings, or gunpowder free guns...

C'mon, man. Don't let your biases cloud your judgement.

Re:Rubbish

[golodh]

Gunpowder doesn't show up on ordinary scanners, and you don't *need* metal casings if you only plan to fire one or two shots.

Re:Rubbish

[Lazere]

You really have no idea how bullets work, do you? The metal casings are for the bullets, not the guns. If you attempt to make a bullet with a plastic casing (you can't buy them), it will fail on the first shot. Not the second shot, not the third, the first. If you use plastic casings on a bullet, it will explode and you will fail. No debate.

Re:Rubbish

[1729]

You really have no idea how bullets work, do you? The metal casings are for the bullets, not the guns. If you attempt to make a bullet with a plastic casing (you can't buy them), it will fail on the first shot. Not the second shot, not the third, the first. If you use plastic casings on a bullet, it will explode and you will fail. No debate.

Caseless ammunition already exists.

Re:Rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

Not one without a metal case and primer...

Re:Rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard of holographic bullets. You can disengage the safety protocols. Without them, even a holographic bullet can kill.

Re:Rubbish

[lister king of smeg]

You really have no idea how bullets work, do you? The metal casings are for the bullets, not the guns. If you attempt to make a bullet with a plastic casing (you can't buy them), it will fail on the first shot. Not the second shot, not the third, the first. If you use plastic casings on a bullet, it will explode and you will fail. No debate.

Caseless ammunition already exists.

yes but those are made to be fired in metal guns.

Re:Rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

Plastic bullets, with plastic casings and plastic primers? Nope, never heard of them, doubt I ever will, unless you mean an airsoft gun.

Re:Rubbish

[WillAdams]

Apparently you think the thin brass case makes a difference in whether or no a gun explodes when fired?

It doesn't, and oft' reloaded cases will split, and hitting the primer will detonate a round, shredding the case in the process.

A metal case does deform and conform to the chamber when fired --- a plastic or paper on will as well to a degree --- look at shotgun shells.

Dear DOD: Pandora's box well and truly open.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody can effectively stop music piracy, for God's sake, much less anything else. Suppression just pushes this into the hands of the people whose hands you'd rather not have it in. 3D-printed guns, mines, ammo, bombs, not to mention the biological weapon possibilities. They'll all be with us in the next 5 years. You can try and supress it, and if you're stupid, you will. The only effective counter to this is good governance, a fair economy not dominated by the super-wealthy and a reasonable amount of social justice. Sorry that's so unpalatable to you that all you have left is arrest, force and a multitude of drones. I'm sure that will be as effective in the USA as it was in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beep, wrong

[cpuffer_hammer]

Metal detectors detect conductive materals. Or you would not be able to find coins (most of which are non ferrous) with them.

Re:Beep, wrong

[PoolOfThought]

Metal detectors detect conductive materals.

Water is a conductor... a pretty good one. I think your explanation is missing something. And you're not allowed to say "ferrous conductors" because, well, then we're back where you guys started.

Incidentally, and strangely on topic, there was an episode of "Bones" where some bad guy rigged up a handheld machine that shot ice pellets as a projectile with enough force to pierce human flesh.

Re:Beep, wrong

[PPH]

Water is a conductor... a pretty good one.

Not really. Contaminants in water are what make it conduct (particularly those that ionize in solution, like NaCl). Or the power would be going out every time it rained and pole top insulators got wet.

Re:Beep, wrong

[amorsen]

Water is a conductor... a pretty good one.

Water is an absolutely horrible conductor. Salt solutions can be pretty good conductors, but pure water is certainly not useful for conducting electricity.

Re:Beep, wrong

[PoolOfThought]

Fair enough. I concede your point and wish to change my response to reflect it. It still doesn't change what I was saying... metal detectors detect something alright, and "conductive materials" is not a sufficiently descriptive answer for what they detect (much like how "water" in it's pure form does not effectively conduct electricity) .

Re:Beep, wrong

[PoolOfThought]

See my response to PPH... (you probably both posted that at the same time)

Re:Beep, wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Metal detectors detect changes in generated magnetic fields. They do indeed find coins. What the hell, aren't Slashdotters passing high school anymore?

Re:Beep, wrong

[Samizdata]

And, since we are talking fiction, Spycraft: The Great Game also had an assassination with an ice bullet.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[idontgno]

Indeed. That's how it works in revolution. If you fail, you're a traitor and you probably die a traitor's death. If you succeed, you're the Father (or Mother, to be fair) of the Nation.

How many fictional alternate-history timelines have George Washington hanged, drawn, and quartered? At least a few.

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube

[daninaustin]

It's already on piratebay http://pirateproxy.net/torrent/8449468/Liberator_-_First_3D_Printable_Gun

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[aminorex]

"It's treason to plot the violent overthow of your own government."

All governments are formed by acts of treason. The current government was formed by an act of treason 51 years ago.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[Darth Snowshoe]

He should have waited then until he had a more convincingly functional weapon. The issue with the ITAR restrictions is not that it's going to prevent the distribution of this gun, as people have already said on this forum. It's that its going to prevent DEFCAD from openly refining its design and distributing designs for all the improved weapons.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[Anonymous Coward]

his so called ideology is already spread as far as it can get.. he doesn't have any new ideas in that respect.
he is however unemployed and living from donations, that's why getting on forbes is more important for him than making a gun that shoots twice.

Getting on a single newspaper was enough to put the plans far and wide. Besides, the parts are easy as pie to draw up in any cad, though anyone with brains would then draw the spring to be a hw store spring instead of a printed spring. and while at it, add a metal tube to the bullet holder.

Re:Very fast - make the thing durable

[Anonymous Coward]

The magazines demoed on YouTube were "polished" with acetone. Applying Sandstrom 28A, a MIL spec air dry solid film lubricant, should make it more durable than uncoated ABS by providing very low COF (half that of PTFE) and adding some heat resistance. Someone should try this to see how many 38 caliber rounds can be fired before jamming.

Here's the letter DEFCAD got from the DoS...

[He Who Has No Name]

United States Department of State

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

Offense of Defense Trade Controls Compliance

May 08, 2013

In reply letter to DTCC Case: 13-0001444

[Cody Wilson's address redacted]

Dear Mr. Wilson,

The Department of State, Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Enforcement Division (DTCC/END) is responsible for compliance with and civil enforcement of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) (AECA) and the AECA’s implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 C.F.R. Parts 120-130) (ITAR). The AECA and the ITAR impose certain requirements and restrictions on the transfer of, and access to, controlled defense articles and related technical data designated by the United States Munitions List (USML) (22 C.F.R. Part 121).

The DTCC/END is conducting a review of technical data made publicly available by Defense Distributed through its 3D printing website, DEFCAD.org, the majority of which appear to be related to items in Category I of the USML. Defense Distributed may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without the required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.

Technical data regulated under the ITAR refers to information required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of defense articles, including information in the form of blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation. For a complete definition of technical data, see 120.10 of the ITAR. Pursuant to 127.1 of the ITAR, it is unlawful to export any defense article or technical data for which a license or written approval is required without first obtaining the required authorization from the DDTC. Please note that disclosing (including oral or visual disclosure) or tranferring technical data to a foreign person, whether in the United States or abroad, is considered an export under 120.17 of the ITAR.

The Department believes Defense Distributed may not have established the proper jurisdiction of the subject technical data. To resolve this matter officially, we request that Defense Distributed submit Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) determination requests for the following selection of data files available on DEFCAD.org, and any other technical data for which Defense Distributed is unable to determine proper jurisdiction:

1.Defense Distributed Liberator pistol

2..22 electric

3.125mm BK-14M high-explosive anti-tank warhead

4.5.56/.223 muzzle brake

5.Springfield XD-40 tactical slide assembly

6.Sound Moderator – slip on

7.“The Dirty Diane” 1/2-28 to 3/4-16 STP S3600 oil filter silencer adapter

8.12 gauge to .22 CB sub-caliber insert

9.Voltlock electronic black powder system

10.VZ-58 sight

DTCC/END requests that Defense Distributed submits its CJ requests within three weeks of the receipt of this letter and notify this office of the final CJ determinations. All CJ requests must be submitted electronically through an online application using the DS-4076 Commodity Jurisdiction Request Form. The form, guidance for submitting CJ requests, and other relevant information such as a copy of the ITAR can be found on DDTC’s website at http://www.pmddtc.state.gov./

Until the Department provides Defense Distributed with the final CJ determinations, Defense Distributed should treat the above technical data as ITAR-controlled. This means that all such data shoudl be removed form public access immediately. Defense Distributed should also review the remainder of the data made public on its website to determine whether any additional data may be similarly controlled and proceed according to ITAR requirements.

Additionally, DTCC/END requests information about the procedures Defense Distributed follows to d

Re:Here's the letter DEFCAD got from the DoS...

[magic maverick]

I'm outside the jurisdiction of the USA. I'm also happy to email a copy of the files to anyone interested. Reply to this post (with a logged in account) with the email address you want me to send them to.

Or you could download them yourself from:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:6c4089ac6c134f1b2dff18499658b228d9eb2657&dn=Liberator.zip&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80

I've no 3D printer, nor plans to buy one (unless I suddenly come into a lot of money, perhaps by winning the lottery); however, I like the idea of people printing out 3D plastic guns. It's funny. (I don't know where you get the bullets from though...)

Re:Here's the letter DEFCAD got from the DoS...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Department of State, Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Enforcement Division (DTCC/END) (hence "Nazi thugs")....

Re:Here's the letter DEFCAD got from the DoS...

[Khyber]

"I'm outside the jurisdiction of the USA."

Not if your country has an extradition treaty with us.

Got news for you, your countries are slaves to us, whether you know it or not. Hell, we're slaves to ourselves, and the majority of us don't even know.

Re:Here's the letter DEFCAD got from the DoS...

[myth24601]

I don't think extradition works that way.

Re:Here's the letter DEFCAD got from the DoS...

[Khyber]

I can guarantee you a bunch of those treaties we have with other countries include ITAR extradition clauses.

I do plenty of international business. We're all bound by some fairly strict and honestly bullshit laws.

Re:Here's the letter DEFCAD got from the DoS...

[Anonymous Coward]

You would think that they would be able to avoid typos like "shoudl" or "tranferring" in their official letters.

Re:Here's the letter DEFCAD got from the DoS...

[ExploHD]

In a weird twist of fate, this particular comment is being cited on ArsTechnica.com.

Wikipedia is the Solution

[PortHaven]

Simply create a Wikipedia article. And than post the design file in the article.

One would be hard pressed to argue that Wikipedia is NOT a library or similar resource.

Re:Wikipedia is the Solution

[Culture20]

LiberatorPlasticGunBlueprints has been removed due to use of original research.

Crude fake guns are now a credible leathal threat

[Anonymous Coward]

How about all those would-be terrorists who can now print their very own pistols that will fail to show up on airport scanners if they (unaccountably) fail to put a big steel x-ray reflector inside the gun?
How's that for 'clear and present danger? Feel good about sticking it to 'the man' and spreading 100,000 copies of those gun CAD files, do you? Irresponsible is the least one can say about it.

Actually printing this gun out is not required. The existence of this printable gun demonstrates that any crude chunk of plastic with what appears to be a trigger and a barrel can potentially fire a bullet and kill.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[ebno-10db]

Ok, I'll bite. What act of treason was committed in 1962?

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[Anonymous Coward]

It's treason to plot the violent overthow of your own government.

Defcad is plotting the violent overthrow of the government? Where do you come up with this stuff? Is your sole source of news Piers Morgan or the Daily Kos?

This represents an efficient working of our federal government to you? Good thing we got rid of that guy hosting plans for a worthless plastic gun instead of following up on warnings about a few possible terrorists from Chechnya.

Also, despite what various talking heads and teleprompters might to try to get you to believe, crushing the right to keep and bear arms does not in fact represent the citizen's interests.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[ebno-10db]

Huh, someone should have told those folks back in 1775 about that.

I believe they knew it. After signing the Declaration of Independence, a fellow name B. Franklin said:

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Old Ben sure could turn a clever phrase.

re

[Anonymous Coward]

this is kinda stupid...

so in order for this 3D file to be useful, you need to purchase a 3D printer.. which runs in the area of $8k...
ya ok, from there you can print off a bunch of 1 shot guns.

this isnt going to win any wars, or start any.. hell you would be lucky if you can get away with robbing a liqour store with one of these guns.
it may fire a bullet.. doesnt mean it is accurate... also the range is going to be very limited due to barrel length.. thats also assuming you done lose your hand when you fire it due to everything being plastic.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[He Who Has No Name]

It doesn't have to work well.

I just has to work. The purpose was to provoke the exact response he got. The feds took the bait, and now the game is on and the whole debate is probably headed to the courts... where the feds will quite likely lose and lose big.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[Culture20]

This represents an efficient working of our federal government to you? Good thing we got rid of that guy hosting plans for a worthless plastic gun instead of following up on warnings about a few possible terrorists from Chechnya.

This is the State Department, not the FBI. Although, if these plastic blueprints hadn't been up on the internet, the peaceful Libyan protest of a video might never have turned violent. And with the proper spin, >80 of Americans will believe that.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[ganjadude]

seriously, my question is why it took 2 days for the state department to "handle this" meanwhile its been 8 months and we still dont know who instructed what in bengazi

FOIA needed

[guevera]

Someone needs to FOIA all records of communication between Senator Chuck Schumer's office and the U.S. State Department for the last month. $5 says he requested this.

Re:FOIA needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone needs to FOIA all records of communication between Senator Chuck Schumer's office and the U.S. State Department for the last month. $5 says he requested this.

Then he's a fucking moron.

(Aaw, shit. I just pwned myself)

Funny thing was I almost downloaded the files because of Schumer being a jackass about this issue the other day. I will neither confirm nor deny having downloading the files tonight. I don't own a 3D printer. I don't own a firearm, nor do I feel a need to own one.

Thanks to this dumbassery from DoS, I downloaded the files purely out of spite. Can't stop the signal, Mal.

Re:FOIA needed

[Lord Kano]

Same here. I didn't have much interest in downloading these files because I have no 3D printer and I'm not likely to get one in the near future. As soon as I heard that the Obama administration was throwing it's weight around, I started looking for mirrors.

LK

Where is the schematic for a 3D printer?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if I use my 3D printer to print a 3D printer, will the universe implode?

Or, for people who want to provide it to Americans

[daveschroeder]

...just do the same thing we do with cryptographic tools that are considered munitions, which is ensure they aren't exported, and make efforts to provide/limit them to US persons instead of making it freely downloadable for anyone.

You don't have to wait long

[davidwr]

The Streisand Effect: By the time you say it, the wait is over.

Does Amazon make sure you aren't a forienger...

[davidwr]

... before selling you that book? If not, they should expect a knock on the door, er, a letter in their mailbox soon.

Re:Does Amazon make sure you aren't a forienger...

[Khashishi]

Amazon is a corporation, silly.

"This T-Shirt is a Munition"

[Fencepost]

I know that you're all young whippersnappers who should get off my damn lawn, but does nobody remember the RSA Perl T-Shirts from Joel Furr from back in 1995? Yeah, yeah, most of you weren't out of kindergarten, whatever.

Basically, the shirts had RSA as implemented in 3 lines of unreadable-even-for-perl code, which at the time was illegal to export in machine-readable format (Thanks, ITAR!). I believe there were multiple variations, including barcode versions for extra-crunchy machine-readability and at least one person who attempted to turn himself into a munition by getting it tattooed on. Later on there was a similar movement around DeCSS (not "munitions" related); I still have at least one of the shirts from that.

Seems to me that this is pretty clearly in the same general category.

Oh, and "damn kids"

Re:"This T-Shirt is a Munition"

[dean.collins]

still got one of the shirts somewhere :)

Re:"This T-Shirt is a Munition"

[VortexCortex]

I know that you're all young whippersnappers who should get off my damn lawn, but does nobody remember the RSA Perl T-Shirts.

Yeah, I have a few of the RSA shirts. I also remember posting the cryptic Perl code to verify my email signatures as the signature of my emails... Though I'm not sure if these are my memories or that of the ancient one I must be a clone of... I mean, I'm just over 3 decades old, and my lawn is yet very meager, surely these engrams are transplants.

Re:"This T-Shirt is a Munition"

[T.E.D.]

This isn't quite the same situation. I suspect the DoS would have no trouble with a "plans for printing a gun" T-Shirt, as long as you aren't shipping it overseas.

Re:"This T-Shirt is a Munition"

[Anonymous Coward]

This calls for a T-shirt with human-readable shapefile code (it's probably XML or something, right?).

Gosh, now we have to resort to Bittorrent!

[belgo]

http://thepiratebay.sx/search/defcad/0/99/0

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[gman003]

Oh, there can be charges. They can charge you with everything for nothing.

Just for this post, they could arrest me and charge me with conspiracy, homicide, patent infringement, tax evasion, horse theft, transmitting nuclear secrets to East Germany, violating the Volstead Act and, last but not least, attempted conspiracy.

Absolutely zero of those charges would stick. Some of them are no longer illegal, or possible. One of them never was. But they can charge me with it all the same, keep me in jail for at least a year before it goes to trial. They don't even have to charge me, if they decide I'm a terrorist and throw me in Gitmo instead of County.

Can't have furrriners downloading weapons designs!

[jcr]

That would cut into the revenues of some of the Ruling Party's favorite cronies!

-jcr

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... since you said our government, I'm gonna assume you're an American and enjoyed the many benefits of our public education system.

So, I can confidently say:

GTFO you worthless dumbass. As an American you should damned well know what treason is and isn't.

Since you're too fucking stupid, let me make it clear for you... if you're literate

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Source: The highest fucking law in the damned land.

Protesting, arming protestors, comforting protestors, promoting anarchy and destabilization isn't good enough. Saying you want to fucking KILL the government isn't good enough. Advocating open insurrection isn't good enough.

Treason is the actual act of open war or aiding those in open war.

Nothing less.

Now please, go burn yourself alive.

What law bans it?

[daninaustin]

What specific law bans the publishing of the instructions to make meth?

Re:What law bans it?

[Stuarticus]

Why don't you publish some on your website and find out?

Re:What law bans it?

[daninaustin]

Why don't you just answer the question. If there isn't a law against it then it isn't illegal. Just do a google search. The formula is out there all over the place.

Come back with a court order

[J'raxis]

Here are some mirrors:

http://www.jraxis.com/tmp/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip
http://www.eprci.net/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip
https://www.nhteaparty.org/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip
http://www.manchfreepress.com/sites/default/files/DefDist_DEFCAD_MEGA_PACK_v4.2_(Saito).zip

"Requests" to remove these files will be heartily laughed at.

Re:Come back with a court order

[Lord Kano]

I wish I had mod points.

LK

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[CrimsonAvenger]

It's treason to plot the violent overthow of your own government.

Or not.

From the US Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Note that "plotting" isn't listed there.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[Anonymous Coward]

AC suspects you have a conspiracy theorist referring to the CIA/mafia hit on JFK...

I can think of a few better examples of borderline treason... but in the interests of not stirring up debate as to 'settled' law... to hell with it.

pgp

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the same thing that happened with PHP? Hosting on a website doesn't violate Itar or something?

Re: pgp

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean pgp

im kind of in favor of banning perl

[decora]

i mean, just on the grounds of obscenity "shocking to the conscience"....

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[ebno-10db]

AC suspects you have a conspiracy theorist referring to the CIA/mafia hit on JFK...

I thought that at first, but JFK was assassinated in 1963. Either his history or his arithmetic is off.

Hmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, this is a tricky situation.

The thought of small arms like pistols being printed? It's ok, I guess. It makes me a bit nervous, but it shouldn't be taken away.

Automatic and illegal weapons being printed? Now that scares me. I do not like that at all.

Medical supplies and tools etc. being printed? Awesome! Perfect! Great! Although... it has a potential (slim as though it may be) to put good people out of a job further down the line...

My point: I like the idea of 3D Printing things, it is just my humble opinion that it needs to be regulated.

Which puts the ITAR head-to-head with amendment 1

[Ungrounded Lightning]

ITAR also says that exporting blueprints and technical data related to an item requires an export permit in the same way that exporting the item does.

And this puts the ITAR rules in direct conflict with the First Amendment. Guess which wins: The Constitution, or a law?

This government action has just brought the conflict into scope for litigation and created a person with the necessary standing to bring the suit.

He's a law student, too.

(Also a self-proclaimed "anarchist libertarian, which I think is a slap at some of the recent anti-libertarian mouth-foaming among the Lamestream Media).

There are several well-funded (mainly by millions of gunnies' individual contributions) organizations whose charter includes supporting such suits. They've had considerable success lately - such as DC v. Heller (confirming 2nd Amendment protects an individual right) and McDonald v. Chicago ("incorporating" it, i.e. applying it to the states and their subdivisions.)

I think the government just opened themselves up to another 2nd Amendment suit. B-)

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[Anonymous Coward]

When you wrote "your own government", you probably meant "the thugs that claim to own you". Treason requires allegiance, and what sane person has any to the thugs in DC and wherever the lesser thugs are scattered across the fruited plans of the world? It's not "treason", it's just "opposing vicious thugs". Of course, that doesn't make them murder peaceful people any less, but I just thought I'd clarify.

Authorities manufacturing crimes

[kbahey]

I totally agree with you, but only in theory.

In practice, I have seen the many terror plots that go to court and get convictions are mostly from disaffected lost youth who trash talk, like you said, but the FBI prods them into a plot that they would not have done if left on their own. See FBI manufacturing terrorism

And this is not unique to the USA either. Up here in Canada, there is a case that looks to me as entrapment. The perpetrators would have never took action on their own, had it not been a government informant been egging them on all the time. See Thoughts on the May 2006 terrorism arests in Canada

Re:Authorities manufacturing crimes

[Trogre]

but the FBI prods them into a plot that they would not have done if left on their own

(emphasis mine)

Wait, doesn't your country have laws against entrapment?

Re:Authorities manufacturing crimes

[kbahey]

I am sure there are laws against entrapment in both the USA and Canada.

But, as I said: theory is one thing and practice is another. Sad ...

Re:Which puts the ITAR head-to-head with amendment

[He Who Has No Name]

The absolute last thing a federal prosecutor ever wants to see at the other bench is a lawyer from the NRA, the EFF, and the ACLU all sitting next to each other.

And that very well might happen here.

You guys are all being trolled

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the proof besides this guy's claims?

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[fustakrakich]

Otherwise we'll have abandoned Freedom of Speech...

Never really had it, but abandonment became official in 1798

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[Anonymous Coward]

Aliens gave us antimatter discovery after we made a technology trade deal with them in exchange for human genetic material.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[fustakrakich]

Stanley Ann Dunham had a baby

Whitehouse.gov petition regarding DEFCAD

[sv_libertarian]

Started this petition on whitehouse.gov https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/allow-defcad-resume-distributing-their-files/J4TrTQkZ

Re:Whitehouse.gov petition regarding DEFCAD

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Unlike what americans tend to believe, the USA and it's laws are not the world. DEFCAD doesn't spread it only to US americans and their strange and lunatic obsession with guns, but to the entire world. And seriously, I want to feel secure and save, and that means no guns for idiots in my country. I seriously and deeply hate DEFCAD and their arrogant and insane chief tard.

More people are shot dead per year in the USA then the loss in two US wars (Iraq+Afghanistan) combined. Think about that.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean to provide guns.
You freedom of speech can be "I like that" or "I don't like that". That doesn't give you the right to pollute and endanger other people.

Re:Which puts the ITAR head-to-head with amendment

[floodo1]

he has a free speech right to say this to foreigners that trumps ITAR?

WTF is DEFCAD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to make the reader understand what you're writing next time. Thanks a bunch editors, once again...

Re:Which puts the ITAR head-to-head with amendment

[gknoy]

I believe MIT press was able to print a book of crypto implementations, back when such software was ITAR restricted, so yes: I think he does.

Fuck your reglatory state

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck your reglatory state

Yu also prevent us from keeping/owning/marrying sweet young girls.
  You ban everything that is good.

FUCK YOU I HOPE IT IS BRUTALLY OVERTHROWN or crumbles.

Re:I hope Cody Wilson spends eternity in jail

[Anonymous Coward]

Go lick a boot, statist.

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good.
But not enough.

Rubbish - again -

[golodh]

Some shotgun shells happen to be made almost entirely from paper or plastic. In that case, only the percussion cap is metal.

See here: http://www.ballisticproducts.com/Rio-Valu-Hull-12ga-2-3_4-new_primed-blue-10mm-brass-bag_100/productinfo/RIO127010/

And as a later post notes: the small brass cap isn't there to protect the gun from exploding when it's fired. In case you were wondering, I'll tell you what it's for. It's there to ensure reliability of action over a large number of duty cycles. It does that in various ways. The brass cap takes a lot of heat with it if it's ejected directly after the shot (as in a pistol or a rifle). You only need that when you want to be able to sustain a high rate of firing. It also prevents pitting of the barrel, and it ensures low tolerances in the dimension of munitions.

So plastic cartridges are completely feasible for your basic limited-shot hijacker's weapon.

With a little tinkering you can also substitute the percussion cap with something non-metallic too: http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-586081.html

If you go with off-the-shelf materials, the only metallic thingies you'll be left with are the primer and the firing pin.

And I bet you can get rid of those too, e.g. a ceramic firing pin and custom-printed plastic primers.

Duh

[ThatsNotPudding]

This is a zip gun not some wonder weapon. How the hell is this a defense article?

Because it's undetectible with standard scanners if you leave out the near-pointless metal (fig leaf) pellet.

That does leave the issue of the metal cartridge casing, but I'm sure these loyal patriots are working on that issue as well.

Equal

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad to see obama hates the First Amendment as much as the others.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[Anonymous Coward]

"adhering" - "believe in, follow the practises of"

Do you see how it could be argued that plotting falls under that? How about plotting = giving aid (tactical resources).

heh heh... it's a DoS DoS

[drinkypoo]

Update: 05/09 21:17 GMT by T : Tweet aside, that should be Department of State, rather than Department of Defense, as many readers have pointed out. (Thanks!)

A Denial of Service attack from the Department of State... Do the DoS-a-DoS (ha ha, ha ha HA!) (With apologies to Busta.)

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[khallow]

It's treason to plot the violent overthow of your own government.

But not if you succeed.

then he should get ready to run like a fugitive

I'm sure you've done something that someone would disagree with. Would you like to run like a fugitive?

I for one am gratified by the efficient workings of our Federal government in representing its citizens' interests.

Sure you are.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[MachineShedFred]

It's also treasonous to swear a legal oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and then do everything you can to not do that.

See: the 537 elected members of the Federal Government, give or take a few.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[Darth Snowshoe]

It's treason to plot the violent overthow of your own government.

"But not if you succeed."

Listen to you. Probably lived your whole life in the United States. Never been drafted. Never gone to war. Never been oppressed in any significant way. Never really known hardship or poverty. I'm not trying to make light of your life experience, which honestly I don't have any idea about. But there's lots of people on this thread specifically who seem happy to talk fliply about treason or anarchy or revolution. You know what, everyone has a beef with the Federal government but for the vast vast majority, their life here is very fortunate indeed compared to most of the rest of the world. That so many people from so many other places have come here to make their best effort at a better life is evidence that life in America is pretty good. Talking smack about the overthrow of the government seems entirely disconnected to actual reality, and it shouldn't be tolerated.

"I'm sure you've done something that someone would disagree with. Would you like to run like a fugitive?"

You know, I've done lots of things that people disagree with, but for the real biggies, I usually wait a while and and talk it out with some reasonable people before I take the plunge. That Defense Distributed has been so entirely dogged about doing this as soon as possible, without ever really considering the consequences, with such obvious callous disregard for the outcomes for anyone other than themselves, qualifies them for our contempt.

“You can print a lethal device. It’s kind of scary, but that’s what we’re aiming to show.”(Cody Wilson) Well, DEFCAD could have shown that WITHOUT scattering cad files all over the internet. For starters, every policeman in America now has to treat every toy gun and chunk of plastic as a possible lethal weapon, and that wasn't true a week ago. The likelihood of people getting shot by cops just increased, for no good reason. Second up, the entire gazillion dollar security theater at airports now has to be reworked. Oh, that won't be inconvenient for anyone (or costly to the whole rest of the world) that every piece of plastic carried onto a plane will have to be inspected. And someday, sooner or later, someone is going to be shot dead with a DEFCAD design that slipped through security somewhere.

Never mind the train wreck this is going to be for the actual maker community - some of the nicest and most well-meaning people I've met. Now suddenly they and their entire enterprise are suspect.

Does Mr. Cody Wilson care at all? Oh, ha ha, why would he? Information wants to be free! He's not responsible for anything. He's just raising the issue.

Apropos.

[Anonymous Coward]

/. bottom of page quote: "Just to have it is enough."

Using threaties to trump civil rights

[onyxruby]

This isn't the first or last time the Federal Government has used international treaties as an end run around constitutional rights. They attempted the same thing with several intellectual property rights treaties. People have to be vigilant or their rights will taken away as we all stand by complaining that we don't like the people that are being targeted and therefore it's okay never realizing that were establishing legal precedent to be used against ourselves.

Re:Sound of dogs baying, getting closer

[khallow]

Listen to you. Probably lived your whole life in the United States. Never been drafted. Never gone to war. Never been oppressed in any significant way. Never really known hardship or poverty. I'm not trying to make light of your life experience, which honestly I don't have any idea about. But there's lots of people on this thread specifically who seem happy to talk fliply about treason or anarchy or revolution. You know what, everyone has a beef with the Federal government but for the vast vast majority, their life here is very fortunate indeed compared to most of the rest of the world. That so many people from so many other places have come here to make their best effort at a better life is evidence that life in America is pretty good. Talking smack about the overthrow of the government seems entirely disconnected to actual reality, and it shouldn't be tolerated.

So do you have a point to that or are you just whining? So not everyone is happy with the world. Do you really want to give them valid pretext for armed rebellion.

You know, I've done lots of things that people disagree with, but for the real biggies, I usually wait a while and and talk it out with some reasonable people before I take the plunge. That Defense Distributed has been so entirely dogged about doing this as soon as possible, without ever really considering the consequences, with such obvious callous disregard for the outcomes for anyone other than themselves, qualifies them for our contempt.

So what did they do that was a problem? You mention "outcomes". What outcome could happen here that deserves your contempt? Shouldn't you have at least an inkling of a problem first?

Also, I find that most consideration of "outcome" really is about taking control of the process, here manufacture via 3-D printing. As many people have noted, there's no difference between this weapon and making a gun in a machine shop, except that the latter works better. And you can make a plastic gun in a machine shop too.

Popularizing such an inefficient weapon might actually save lives. It's something like how the highly popularized act of hijacking airplanes is seen as sexy terrorism rather than the more effective tactic of blowing up power substations.

Re:Jeremiah Cornelius = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!"

[Anonymous Coward]

APK, you have been called out here. Will you run away like a coward like usual?

Doesn't hold water ...

[golodh]

The argument: "We need those plastic printable guns to keep the big bad government in check doesn't hold water. Whilst it may have some superficial 'survivalist' appeal, it lacks substance.

Why so? Let me explain.

Supposing I were, for the sake of the argument, to agree with your implicit assumption that "the Government" is somehow kept from becoming despotic because lots of people have a handgun at home. I'm definitely not in agreement with you on this assumption, but supposing I were.

Even then the availability of a crummy printable plastic gun won't have any impact on gun availability for law-abiding citizens, who do happen to be in the majority. They can, quite legally, buy all the guns they can stomach from their local arms dealer. Pretty good guns too, by all accounts, and a load of ammunition to go with it.

What would *you* rather have for "self-defence": a standard run-of-the-mill no-frills steel pistol of a reputable make, or some plastic contraption that could blow up in your hand at any shot and which will be accurate enough only for a shootout inside an elevator or an airplane?

The only segment of society that will actually benefit from printable guns is that segment that really wants to have a gun, no matter how crummy and makeshift, that they can get their mitts on without having to register or that will cause any inconvenient questions being asked (like: "Do you have a criminal record?" or "Have you been diagnosed as insane?"). Or the segment that's looking for a gun that won't register on most types of scanner.

I don't think you'd want to aid either segment with obtaining a plastic gun.

And of course no criminal who values his competitive edge will want a plastic pop-gun either. Besides they have their channels already. Part of their job-description as it were.

I therefore conclude that this "we-need-plastic-printable-guns-to keep-the-government-in-check" idea is a big red herring.