Slashdot Mirror
Bill Regulating 3D Printed Guns Announced In NYC
New submitter BioTitan writes "New York City may be the first state to crack down on 3D printed guns. Two pieces of legislation were introduced on June 13, one in the City Council that only allows licensed gunsmiths to print the guns, and another in the State Assembly that would make it illegal for anyone to print a gun. Cody Wilson, creator of the first 3D printed guns, and founder of Defense Distributed, told The Epoch Times, 'Such legislation is a deprivation of equal protection and works in clear ignorance of Title I and II of U.S. gun laws.'"
They will be laughing on the other sides of their faces when Obama's storm troopers round them up and ship them to a FEMA camp.
Why should I worry? It's not like the government is tracking every website I visit and every person I talk to, how would they know if I've even downloaded this liberator gun, much less made one?
(oh wait...)
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
"New York City may be the first state"? Thats like watching a game show where the contestant is asked for a country in Europe that is fancy and them saying London or Paris.
-SaNo
A large number of atheists are libertarian, not leftist. We leave all religions behind, including the religions of the left and right, which, like any good religion, foists groupthink for the purpose of seizure of power for the leaders.
As with more normal religions, the best policy is to let people be free.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I can legally manufacture my own firearms in the US. So can most of you. I can make them, own them, and use them.
The only thing I can't legally do? Sell them.
So I could legally manufacture a more-or-less perfect replica of the gun used in Newtown. But New York gets its knickers in a knot over someone printing out a single-shot low-pressure piece of crap?
Dear politicians - We all know you couldn't think your way out of a paper bag. But can you at least prioritize the crap on which you waste our tax dollars?
Please keep in mind that New York City is not it's own state. And the rest of the state is pretty steamed about the recent gun legislation that the Governor jammed through the state legislature. Some upstate sheriffs have even gone so far as to say they will not enforce that legislation, which is a pretty big step for law enforcement to come out and state in public. Gun rights are a twitchy subject here right now, I find it hard to think of any upstate politician who would support any restriction on 3d printing right now.
9. May I lawfully make a firearm for my own personal use, provided it is not being made for
resale?
Firearms may be lawfully made by persons who do not hold a manufacturer’s license under the GCA
provided they are not for sale or distribution and the maker is not prohibited from receiving or
possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semiautomatic
rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as set forth in regulations in 27 C.F.R. 478.39. In
addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF. An
application to make a machinegun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing
that the firearm is being made for the official use of a Federal, State, or local government agency (18
U.S.C. 922(o),(r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 C.F.R. 478.39, 479.62, and 479.105).
Source: https://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/industry/0501-firearms-top-10-qas.pdf
I mean, to me a 3d printed gun is like any weapon you can build at home or in the garage.
Is a weapon that doesn't follow the "normal" market chain.
So they also should regulate, say, hand made knives, archery and even deadly traps.
It looks to me just like a govt response to a buzzword. Just to let people know "we are watching over you".
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
The point of 3D printed guns is to be able to ignore such legislation if need be. In general, such laws could be anticipated, but are known to be mostly irrelevant.
To put this into another perspective - its currently illegal to download pirated music and movies off the internet. Not proposed legislation, not "we're thinking about it" - it's already 100% against the law. How effective is that?
Another example: its current illegal in nearly every state to possess, grow, or smoke marijuana - yet a significant chunk of the population ends up trying it at some point because when you get right down to it, the shit grows out of the fucking dirt.
3D printed guns are much the same. They're there not just to make it easy to make a gun, but to make laws against it ineffective. The government and politicians can stamp their feet, pound their gavel, and pass whatever laws they way - but if We The People still want a gun, we'll have them - and there's nothing they can do about it.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
According to FactCheck.org, nearly half of the funding for the NRA comes from membership dues alone. Voluntary donations to the NRA, however, still account for a majority portion of the remaining funding.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear
"going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special"
Logical Fallacy. It gives you more protection than having NOTHING, except the broken promises of the government protecting you. And we are seeing exactly how much the government protects you, even as it invades every aspect of your life. But being a good leftist, you must not protest government intrusions into your everyday life, for that is exactly what you're asking for.
Government regulation is government power, more regulation means government has more power. Don't complain when wake up and have no power to stop the government. That is the whole reason for the 2nd Amendment. Power corrupts and all that.
"Trust us, we're from the Government"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I think you're insane for thinking a gun is going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special
What are you talking about? Firearms are literally the best thing for defense from armed assailants.
I don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun,
Then it is clear that you do not have a very good understanding of the Constitution.
As a Libertarian, I find Libertarians defy most stereotypes. I do say, the Libertarian version of Atheism is much better than the leftist Atheists. Leftist Atheists have replaced GOD with Government as the all powerful being, and that is pretty scary concept. Libertarian Atheists tend towards not giving a shit what others believe and want to be left alone.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
There really needs to be a "-1, factually incorrect" option.
The NRA is completely on board with legal homemade guns, and membership dues and advertisements are the majority of their income.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances_and_organizational_structure
Speaking as a leftist of a stripe, we're not. Seriously. Don't get me wrong, I think you're insane for thinking a gun is going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special, don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun, and don't like you personally (for trolling), but I'm actually mad that Obama et al are wasting political capitol on gun control.
Just wait until the current president is voted out of office and the next republican is in office. You will be doubly-sorry this stuff was started then when it's used to chase down and out women who have had abortions, people that don't go to church, and all kinds of other sinners.
Who's got guns won't matter when the feds decide to use information to destroy you. Gonna shoot back at a web page with your mom's three abortions listed on it? HA!
Your disregard for portions of the Constitution will cause the downfall of all of the Constitution.
How can you be certain that TOR isn't compromised? I admit that it's a paranoid view to have, but TOR is a very tempting target and lately the paranoid are being proved right on a daily basis.
I think "for your own use" means the same thing that it means in relation to the other two categories of things that the ATF cares about. You can have and make alcohol [beer...not liquor], tobacco [products], and firearms [as long as they're not fully automatic machine guns], it's when you start selling them that oversight gets intrusive.
Gun restriction law is in-and-of-itself perverse (as are the other two categories above). Prohibition's success rate for gun manufacture is only high due to the barrier to learning the process. 3-D printing is getting so much attention because now people who are frightened of guns (instead of people) realize they could be produced without complete government oversight and accountability.
I'm not especially worried about it because the people I'm likely to get shot by will have guns whether there is 3-D printing or not. Banning 3-D printing just means they're more likely to have a reliable gun.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
You scared of owning guns? It's not about being scared of the boogie man as you put it, it's being prepared for the worst. Guns are fun to shoot and being able to handle them and use them is a skill everyone should have. You might live under a rock, but peoples homes do get invaded daily. Thiefs don't go to the ghettos to rob people they go to suburban neighborhoods.. Is it likely to happen to you?? Statistically no, but if it does and you have no skills or tools to protect yourself you become a victim. This "it can't happen to me" mentality is how highschool kids live their lives. Eventually you grow up and realize it CAN happen to you.
You know someone has no basis for their argument when they go to nukes. It's the Hitler of gun debate.
The biggest danger is that the 3D printed gun can anger the totalitarian regime in which you live, causing the regime to imprison or kill you.
Previously, thinking the government was secretly recording all our call and network connection information was "a paranoid view to have." Not sure that's still true.
Similarly, the view you put forth may be paranoid today, but it might be validated in the future.
How is that? How does a "Left wing" enforce their social economic government structure without a strong powerful government behind it?
You're probably not anti-capitalist, you're probably anti-corporatist, which is different, but looks remarkably similar. Do you believe a committee should tell you how much you should be paid, and how hard you should work and what job you should do? If you say no to each of those, you're a capitalist.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I am not an Atheist. Libertarian Atheists don't care what I believe. And I don't care what Atheists believe. Leftwing Atheists would rather I not exist, as my belief somehow threatens them. They end up doing things like Jewish Purge of Soviet Union (killing Jews because they are religious), or persecution of the Falun Gong and Christians in China, if they had their way. Atheistic Socialistic States and those of faith don't mix.
The state should be agnostic towards religion (or lack thereof). First Amendment Style.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
If someone wants to murder someone else, they will not be deterred by the illegality of printing a gun or the other 20 or so laws they have to break before and after the murder.
I don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun
Ahh my favorite argument from people who don't understand this little clause:
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If the Constitution doesn't say anything about it, that implies it's might right and the government cannot restrict it. However in practice I realize the government could give two shits about the Constitution.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Geez, if I can't print a shitty zip-gun, I guess I'll just have to take 5 mins to MAKE one out of some pipe, a rubber band, a tack, and if I'm feeling fancy, wood for a handle.
Certainly none of these is available at the local hardware store!
I feel safer already.
Fucking morons.
-Styopa
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Nothing about "guns", nothing about "owning"
"Arms" = guns, or more generally any weapon which would typically be carried by infantry. (Yes, this means the amendment is specifically referring to military weapons, not hunting weapons.)
"keep" = own
"bear" = carry in public
The words may be a bit unfamiliar after a few hundred years, but the meaning is obvious to anyone who cares to undertake some honest research.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
You're probably thinking of the rules against murder, which doesn't include all killing. For example, the Old Testament Law gave parents explicit permission to kill their perpetually disobedient children, and God often told them to kill all the women and children when they conquered a city. Jesus took the stance against murder even further by denouncing all hatred for others, and requiring his followers to love everyone.
You're really pushing this point hard. Sure, the 2nd Amendment could be repealed, assuming anyone was willing to commit political suicide by proposing the repeal of anything in the Bill of Rights, and that three-quarters of the states were willing to ratify the change. That isn't going to happen any time soon.
Anyone in the USA who opposes any change to the second amendment but drinks alcohol is a morally bankrupt hypocrite not worth listening to, which I would imagine is most of them.
This is simply idiotic. Opposing any change to the 2nd Amendment does not equate to opposing the amendment process itself. The fact that the capacity exists to repeal the 2nd Amendment does not automatically make it a good idea. You're just looking for any excuse to tune out those who disagree with you by casting them as hypocrites.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
In my experience, many atheists don't take the hands off approach. There is a pervasive attitude where people seem to read, "freedom of religion", as "freedom from religion".
Good thing that the terr'ists won't be able to print 3D guns now, then, thanks to this law.
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
Is there fundamentally any reason why these couldn't be made with some material other than a metal? I mean once upon a time armour was steel, but now Kevlar can be used. Planes were aluminium but now carbon fibre can be used. Jet engine turbines are ceramic, etc. I'm not suggesting any of these particular materials are the right ones for this case, and indeed it might be a composite. But it doesn't seem impossible to do away with the last bits of metal, if someone wanted to do that.
Making anyone with a printer a "gunsmith" is just plain irresponsible.
You probably have a mistaken understanding of how difficult it is to make a gun at home with quite basic machining equipment. Here's a detailed photo-record from a guy who legally made an AK-47 from a shovel. Making an AR-15 (requires much more accurate tolerances) is a bit harder, but most cities have machine shops that regularly provide "maker spaces" (to use the geek term) for doing it right, to high precision.
A 3D printer will make a crappy zip gun. Very primitive metalworking tools will make a working AK-47. A CnC milling machine will make a perfectly fine assault rifle: insert billet, run program. The part of the gun that is legally the gun is the lower receiver, which while difficult to invent is still just a piece of metal. An assault rifle "kit" will include a well-made piece of metal that, with a few holes drilled in the right places, becomes a lower receiver. The rest of the kit is legally irrelevant.
3D printing a lower receiver is new and therefore scary to our rulers, but has little practical application. There's already a legal framework (IANAL, know your local laws) that allows you to buy an "almost" receiver, drill a few holes in the right places, and now you have what is legally a gun. You can't legally sell it - because now it's a gun - but you can legally make and own it (in many places, anyway).
TLDR: the work needed to transform a piece of metal from not-legally-a-gun to legally-a-gun is "precisely drill a few holes". 3D printing is difficult and expensive by comparison.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.