Sen. Chuck Schumer Seeks To Extend Ban On 'Undetectable' 3D-Printed Guns

SonicSpike writes with this snippet from The Guardian: "As the technology to print 3D firearms advances, a federal law that banned the undetectable guns is about to expire. The New York senator Chuck Schumer says he is seeking an extension of the law before it expires on 9 December. Schumer said the technology of so-called 3D printing has advanced to the point where anyone with $1,000 and an internet connection can access the plastic parts that can be fitted into a gun. Those firearms cannot be detected by metal detectors or x-ray machines. Schumer says that means anyone can download a gun cheaply, then take the weapons anywhere, including high-security areas. The Democrat is pushing the extension along with Senators Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Bill Nelson of Florida. The effort was announced on Sunday."

Comments

Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[__aasehi2499]

From those who kill it in the name of defending it.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Jhon]

I would like to see a ban against completely ineffectual laws. How effective were the "bans" on guns in movie theaters, malls and schools?

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Shakrai]

No American jurisdiction that I'm aware of (even the anti-gun New York State, where I currently reside) bans firearms within movie theaters or malls. Those are private property, and private property owners are free to allow or prohibit firearms. A prohibition by the property owner may or may not have force of law, depending on the jurisdiction. Here in New York, "no guns allowed" signs have no force of law, outside of trespassing, i.e., if they ask you to leave and you refuse you've committed a crime. They're effectively in the same league as the sign that says "shirts and shoes required". Other jurisdictions (Ohio, Texas, Tennessee, to name a few) give such signs the force of law, and you can lose your concealed carry license and face criminal charges if you ignore them.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Jhon]

Ok. Lets have that conversation. I notice you don't mention schools. How effective have those bans been for schools?

Many of the mass shootings were in "gun free zones". Ok, lets suppose there was no 'force of law' behind that. Would that have made a difference if there were? If so, why hasn't it with schools?

Banning guns will not work in our culture. Even supposing you can "ban" all guns, the shear volume of guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely. Remember, with a modest amount of care, guns can last centuries. "Attrition" just isn't an option.

Find another solution.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[operagost]

Those are private property, and private property owners are free to allow or prohibit firearms.

How long is that going to last when property owners aren't allowed to sell 16 ounce sodas or allow smoking?

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Shakrai]

You're preaching to the choir my friend, I'm a card carrying NRA member who is licensed to carry in 30-some states, and I do so as a matter of routine wherever legal. Sitting in my office right now with a 1911 on my strong side with two reloads on my weak side.

I was just trying to dispel the notion that it's illegal to carry in movie theaters and malls. Hospitals and liquor serving establishments are the only pieces of private property I can think of where firearms are banned by statute in a significant number of American jurisdictions, and not even in all American jurisdictions. I can carry in bars here in the blue state of New York, and the nearly-as-blue state of Pennsylvania just to our South. Hospitals are also allowed in NYS, unless they're attached to a University.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Shakrai]

Not according to Handgunlaw.us, and I'll take their well-researched word over an AC, unless you care to cite the actual statute?

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Entropius]

Washington DC has a de facto ban on guns in these places, since it has a de facto ban on handguns. At the university where I work, there was a "CAMPUS ALERT!" that went out about a year ago saying "a MAN with a GUN was spotted near campus, everyone be careful, the police are looking for him". My reaction was "wait, has he actually shot or threatened anyone?" Nope, was just a dude with a gun, but that's not allowed here.

Arizona (a place with very liberal gun laws) incidentally gives property owners a strong right to prohibit firearms: the assumption is that guns are allowed if they're not forbidden, and many bars and restaurants have "no guns allowed" signs by their doors. You don't lose your concealed carry license because no such license is required there, of course.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Gavagai80]

Gun battles in schools are quite rare compared to the huge number of fist fights, so apparently it's pretty effective.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[cffrost]

From those who kill [liberty] in the name of defending it.

Schumer has no interest in liberty; he's one of the most hardcore authoritarians in the Senate. Why these assholes don't have term limits is beyond my comprehension — Feinstein (with her spy-fetishist "oversight") is good example of how too much time in office results in power-madness and opportunities to become corrupt.

I'm not just picking on Democrats here; (I'm further left/libertarian than Jill Stein;) Ds and Rs are all right-authoritarians in my eyes. Amongst them, though, Schumer takes the cake when it comes to pissing on the Bill of Rights (and not just the Second Amendment). I remember some years back, he voted for a "Juvenile Justice" bill to prosecute more kids as adults in order to extend their sentences, yet with no provisions to grant kids greater liberty in exchange for this added responsibility.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[MachineShedFred]

I love the quote of "anyone with $1,000 and an internet connection can access the plastic parts that can be fitted into a gun."

Anyone with $1,000 and an internet connection can get a gun made of good 'ol steel, which would perform massively better. In fact, you don't even need the $1,000. $500 would get you a very nice handgun in a private party sale.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[GodInHell]

Smoking is different, when used properly and as intended, your smoking harms the person next to you. The ban on sodas was ruled unconstitutional. Try to keep up.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Jhon]

"It is possible to make background checks and document weapon sales."
This is already done. It's been ineffectual.

"It is possible to impose limitations on the purchaser of such weapons to mitigate the risk their tools pose to the community."
This is already done. It's been ineffectual.

"It is possible to limit the characteristics of privately-owned weapons."
This is already done. It's been ineffectual.

"Rational people can understand that there are multiple, legitimate perspectives on the question, and that allows a dialog capable of finding balance among the opposing views. "
Agreed. However, when what has been done in the past has been ineffectual, how does 'doubling down' on an ineffective policy help move the ball?

Further, we cannot and should not legislate from passion. To pass laws after a "tragedy" inflames the passions of people only serves to enact extreme laws.

Maybe -- just MAYBE we can talk about ANOTHER approach.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Internetuser1248]

Informative? Really?

"Smoking is different, when used properly and as intended, your smoking harms the person next to you" - Not proven, if you want to take it on faith you can believe what you want but studies have failed to prove this conclusively

Secondly, when used properly and as intended, firearms harm something, somewhere, maybe not a person, maybe not next to you, but their uses are somewhat limited.

While I am posting on this topic I would also like to point out that this has nothing to do with second amendment freedoms. These weapons can be produced at will by private citizens. This means if it comes to a revolution (and honestly, I don't know what you are all waiting for), they can be produced at the time when needed. At this point the government is going to kill you on sight anyway, so whether you are breaking gun printing laws or not is irrelevant.

If anything, 3d gun printing makes the second amendment obsolete. If 3d guns were any good (currently they aren't but maybe one day), the need to keep arms would no longer exist, people would only need to have 3d printers in every house and could make the guns the day before the revolution starts.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[geekoid]

You seem to suffer form the simple minded idea that criminals are 'all in'. That if they will commit one crime, then they will commit any crime.

They are not.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoking is different, when used properly and as intended, your smoking harms the person next to you.

Your smoking harms the person next to you, yes, but they're only there on that particular piece of private property voluntarily, so if they want to avoid secondhand smoke, they can leave.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[girlintraining]

Anyone with $1,000 and an internet connection can get a gun made of good 'ol steel, which would perform massively better. In fact, you don't even need the $1,000. $500 would get you a very nice handgun in a private party sale.

$500? Try about $200 for an older six-shot revolver. And as far as 'untraceable' goes... this senator clearly is a total retard when it comes to understanding forensics. First, ballistics analysis becomes significantly more inaccurate with each shot; So unless you fire the gun during a crime, and then don't fire it again until they recover it, ballistics won't be of much help in a prosecution. They'll be able to throw up a lot of circumstantial evidence, but a good lawyer can put a pin in that easily enough. Secondly, most guns sold today do have serial numbers, and that's probably what he was referring to. Unfortunately, not all manufacturers put that serial number on in a way that is forensically recoverable after it is filed off or removed. If it is stamped; that is, imprinted, then it likely is. But if the serial number is raised/embossed, then forget it. Many are stamped, but not all are. Especially not older guns. As well, it's typically only the receiver that is stamped with a serial number, as this is what the law considers the actual 'firearm' part of the gun. However, depending again on make and model, a receiver is not difficult to construct from equipment available at your hardware store -- and yes, for less than $1000 too.

His argument doesn't hold water. The problem with 3D printers is that it would put a lot of businesses, well, out of business. And the biggest potential buyers of 3D printers is actually your local hardware and auto stores that right now have to pay a small fortune (which then you get to as well) ordering specialty parts out of a catalog. The entire after-market auto parts empire would deflate to maybe half its size if people could just bring in the broken part, and the store scans it in, or finds a match in a database, and then fires up the printer. 1 hour later, viola -- you have yourself a new plastic part for your car. And it doesn't cost you $60, but maybe $15 instead.

This, right here, is why this senator is pushing it. Lending credence to this theory -- look at some of his other proposals: backup cams in all cars, a bill to ban rental cars, extensive markings and ID on parts, and the list goes on. A quick look at his campaign contributors is all the more proof you need .. he's a paid shill for the auto industry.

Oh yes, firearms bad. 3d printers, terrorism, blah blah. The truth: It would put a big dent in the profits of the people writing his paycheck -- auto parts manufacturers.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Obfuscant]

"Smoking is different, when used properly and as intended, your smoking harms the person next to you"

I'm standing on the street corner on my college campus, during classes, and there is nobody within a block of me in any direction. I light up. I'm violating the law. Who is this "person next to me" I'm harming?

Secondly, when used properly and as intended, firearms harm something, somewhere, maybe not a person, maybe not next to you,

Are you a member of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Paper and Clay Targets?

If anything, 3d gun printing makes the second amendment obsolete.

If anything, printable guns makes the 2nd amendment even more critical. The more things the government gets pushed by hysterical scaredy-cats to ban, the more we need the enumerated rights to keep them from being banned.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Jhon]

"you post is nothing but logical fallacys. (sic)"

Really? I don't think you understand what that means.

"'Begging the Question':
How effective have those bans been for schools?
and
    If so, why hasn't it with schools?
In those statements you are assuming it hasn't. What do you base this on?

Oh... maybe the number of school shootings since the 1990s "gun free school zone" ban? Since I'm not writing a paper or limiting my discussion to formal logic or syllogisms, I did make the assumption of a somewhat informed audience.

Argument from Personal Incredulity,
    Even supposing you can "ban" all guns, the shear volume of guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely.

" "Attrition" just isn't an option."
of course it is; whoever (sic) we could just confiscate them.

That is an unreasonable suggestion. You could not "just" confiscate them. We don't live in a dictatorship -- nor would you be able to find even the bulk of them should such an impossible suggestion magically become possible. Again, I'm not writing a paper and I did make assumptions of a somewhat informed audience. I'm not sure where you live, but if it's in the US, then it's you who is being incredulous.

"guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely. "
indefinitely is a long time.

Yes it is. Again, we've got a fairly large number of guns from pre-civil war that are still very functional.

I don't think you know how to have a conversation.

Interesting statement. I don't think you know how to think reasonably. See my reference above regarding your thoughts on "just" confiscating guns.

"Find another solution."
Why because you can't make an argument?

(cough) ad hominem (/cough)

becasue it doesn't feel right?

Because attempts to control gun violence have been ineffectual. You can cite a few cases where gun violence as gone down -- but there's far more where it has not. Look at Chicago or DC. They have what be the most restrictive gun laws in the nation -- and they appear to not be working. So, yes -- Find another solution. Because doing the same thing that's not working is just crazy talk.

You, and in fact pretty much everyone, has yet to put forth a logical argument to support that, to anything in you post.

And you are engaging in unreasonable thinking, in my opinion.

Ban the sale or gifting of any fire arms. Ban the sale of ammunition.

And some examples of your unreasonable thinking. That will not work in our culture. You will not get a Constitutional amendment passed to change/repeal the second amendment.

If something is POSSIBLE, but UNREASONABLE -- it does NOT qualify as a counter argument. I'm uninterested in effectively having a MATH discussion with you (which is what this would be if we were to limit ourselves to a discussion of formal logic and syllogisms). UNREASONABLE isn't countered by POSSIBLE in the real world. Look at your chances of winning the lottery for a real world example.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[ravenshrike]

OTOH, the ONLY movie theater within 20 miles witrh a ban on guns that had the force of law behind it in Colorado was the exact movie theater that the Aurora shooter chose. It was not the biggest, closest, or most popular. Instead it was the only one that banned guns.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[ravenshrike]

Actually, while he may be able to find locations where the murder rate when down after GC laws were passed I do not believe there are locations that beat the national average decline that occurred at the same time. Which would be the first step, and only the first step, to showing any correlation between a decline in crime and the passage of GC laws.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[krygny]

Politicians like this are the reason we have guns.

Re: Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[ravenshrike]

Tell that to the Jews or the peasants of the Germanic States during the 30 Years War. Hell, tell that to the Indians, either kind. Let's not forget the millions of civilians slaughtered like cattle at the orders of Mao and Stalin.

Ignoring the horrors perpetrated upon civilians by governments for the moment, and of course forcibly disregarding the lack of slaughter happening in Switzerland, it is well known that homogeneity of population leads to peacefulness and that Europe has utterly abused any non-homogenous population it contains within for hundreds of years *cough*jews and romany*cough*.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[RearNakedChoke]

"Smoking is different, when used properly and as intended, your smoking harms the person next to you" - Not proven, if you want to take it on faith you can believe what you want but studies have failed to prove this conclusively

Maybe I haven't kept up with 2nd hand smoking studies, but what studies are you referring to? I thought studies had shown that it was harmful. The 1st 3 pages of google results so far show that 2nd hand smoke is still harmful, including some journals that were in the results.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[lgw]

Term limits mean you can't keep the good ones either. It also opens the door to outright bribery (instead of mere campaign contributions), buy offering senators million-dollar-a-year jobs at your company once their terms are up. (Japan has had a huge problem with that.) Though admittedly that's already the norm for congressional staff, who average something like a 15x pay increase when they move to the private sector.

Re: Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Shakrai]

that Europe has utterly abused any non-homogenous population it contains within for hundreds of years *cough*jews and romany*cough*.

You left out Muslims, they're effectively the niggers of Europe, treated with contempt wherever they go, prohibited from building their places of worship (Switzerland), wearing the clothes proscribed by their faith (France, who also discriminates against Jews in the same way), and isolated into modern day ghettos (France again). The United States is far from perfect, but we don't tell people what they can wear or prohibit from them building places of worship. You'll note that the Muslims who have immigrated to the United States have yet to stage mass demonstrations and riots. Perhaps that has something to do with treating them like human beings? The EU might try that, it'd probably work better for them.

Re: Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Jhon]

"The ban on guns in society at large seems to work pretty well here in europe."

Europe isn't the US. Different cultures, different history with tyrants and oppressive governments and different solutions to those "histories". You aren't going to get a "ban" on guns. Where we have managed 'effective' bans, it's been ineffective.

Likewise, Sharia law may work for some cultures -- it wouldn't work very well in Europe I'm sure.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[Jane Q. Public]

I was just trying to dispel the notion that it's illegal to carry in movie theaters and malls. Hospitals and liquor serving establishments are the only pieces of private property I can think of where firearms are banned by statute in a significant number of American jurisdictions, and not even in all American jurisdictions. I can carry in bars here in the blue state of New York, and the nearly-as-blue state of Pennsylvania just to our South. Hospitals are also allowed in NYS, unless they're attached to a University.

Well, I think it's very significant that he passed up 9 closer theaters that did not explicitly prohibit guns, to single out the one that did. Presumably he didn't want anybody shooting back.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[wHartHog(69)]

Many assumptions in those questions:

1) He has to justify his carry. He does not.
2) He feels he needs to. He did not say that, he said he was carrying. One does not "need" in order to excercise a right
3) He fears for his safety. I see no indication of fear. I suspect, rather, that he does NOT fear for his safety. Once again, fear of safety is not a requirement to excercise a right.
4) He lives somewhere where it is necessary to keep a firearm and ammo while working in an office environment. See above, a firearm being "necessary" is not a requirement for carry if you live in an area that is open carry, '"must issue", or no permit required.

I do however sense you projecting your own fears into the questions. I may be wrong, but if not it's ok. Make you a deal -- I have found that most folks who are "afraid" of guns & people who carry are those that have the least exposure. Actually, this is common in almost all fears. If you are near, I'll take you out, show you some basics, let you fire a few rounds from a variety of rifles, pistols, and shotguns. I'm not saying I can or will change your feelings, but at least I'll know that you are basing those on education, exposure, and experience rather than what you've heard or seen. Message me if you want to take me up on that.

Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here.

[MooseTick]

I have no fear of guns. I own a rifle and have fired severl types of rifles, pistols, and shotguns. I admit they can be fun to use.

Still, I would consider it a burden to keep a gun on my hip when I don't really need it. They can weigh a few pounds. Pretty much no one sits around the office with a sword on their belt. That's a right (assuming its ok with your employer) and they don't have to justify it, but its the same principle. He is wearing it for some reason and he decided to share the fact that he is wearing it with the world. He doesn't have to answer, but I was wondering what the motivation is for going through the effort of attaching the weapon and additional ammo to his side while sitting in an office environment. Perhaps he isn't afraid. Maybe he is extremely brave. It could be a fashion accessory. There could be roving gangs of canibals in his neighborhood. He could use it as a counterbalance for an inner ear disorder. Who knows?

Frankly, I would be afraid if everyone in my office carried a gun on their hip. Sooner or later a dispute would arise and rather than a punch in the nose someone's going to get shot. People get in fights. Things escalate. I can't say I've ever seen a fight at work, but the ability to level the playing field with a gun could change that frequency. If weapons are available they may get used. Additionally misfires happen. People with excellent gun safety skills and knowlege have had accidental discharges.

Futility of certain laws

[john.l.christopher]

I understand the apprehension caused by firearms that can't currently be detected, but I don't quite understand what he's trying to accomplish in enacting a law that can't be enforced

Re:Futility of certain laws

[Sockatume]

You mean, as soon as the gun is detected, it no longer falls under the "undetectable gun" rule? That is indeed a conundrum.

Re:Futility of certain laws

[Anonymous Coward]

The bullet can be detected. Politicians lying as always.

Re:Futility of certain laws

[somersault]

+1 - wtf is the point?

Anybody that really wants to can already manufacturer their own weapons in the airport: Terminal Cornucopia.

A 3D printed knife would probably be a much better weapon than a 3D printed gun that can only fire one shot.

Re:Futility of certain laws

[Joce640k]

+1 - wtf is the point?

Anybody that really wants to can already manufacturer their own weapons in the airport: Terminal Cornucopia.

No need. C4 fits in rectums, along with detonators, etc.

Re:Futility of certain laws

[SJHillman]

It always seemed to me that controlling the ammunition would be easier than controlling the weapon itself. Making a gun is relatively easy compared to making your own gunpowder, especially if you only need the gun to be able to fire a few shots, as is the case with the majority of guns made on the current stock low-end 3D printers that he's concerned about. I'm not in favor of controlling the distribution of gunpowder to the degree they try to control guns, but I do think it would make more sense from an enforcement and regulation perspective.

Re:Futility of certain laws

[serviscope_minor]

We've had the shoebomber and the pantsbomber, so it's only a matter of time before there's a buttbomber.

There's already been one. He tried to assassinate (heh heh heh) a Saudi royal IIRC. Trouble is he kept it up his ass and almost all of the energy went in to blowing him apart. It made a godawful mess, but failed to do much physical damage beyond a rather large cleaning bill.

Re:Futility of certain laws

[Thanshin]

Making a bullet is relatively simple. If the control fell mostly on bullets "cheap" home made bullets would be soon sold.

Making gunpowder, as most of what could be made in the 9th century, isn't very hard. If the control fell mostly on gunpowder we'd be able to buy in online "cheap".

Anyway, it's moot. You can't stop people from making medium range weapons with laws.

Re:Futility of certain laws

[kaladorn]

Apparently even more effective: The primers used in modern ammunition. They are even harder to manufacture than good, clean gunpowder.

These politicos don't read the classics. You can't stuff Pandora (or William Shatner) into the box again....

Re:Futility of certain laws

[larry bagina]

When the TSA is rooting through your panties looking for cash and drugs to steal, maybe they'll find it. Blind pig, acorn and all.

Number of terrorists caught by TSA: 0

Number of TSA screeners arrested for rape: > 0

Number of TSA screeners arrested for drug smuggling: > 0

Number of TSA screeners arrested for child porn: > 0

Number of TSA screeners arrested for stealing: > 0

Re:Futility of certain laws

[Joce640k]

It's pointless trying to get a gun on a plane. What would you do with it, exactly? Kill another passenger or a flight attendant? There's no escape route afterwards and a SWAT team will be waiting for you when you land. It seems much better to shoot the other person in the airport security queue then run away.

Maybe a plastic, single-shot gun is useful if you want to kill a particular person inside a secure building and don't mind getting arrested afterwards. That seems like an unlikely scenario to me. If I was that sort of assassin I'd to wait for the person to go outside the building then show up on a motorbike with some heavy artillery (purchased from Walmart).

All in all, plastic guns don't seem very useful. Can you suggest a realistic scenario where a plastic gun would be essential (or even make a job much easier)?

Re:Futility of certain laws

[Joce640k]

If I was a boss at Al-Qaeda I'd be getting people to stuff things up their ass and sending them to airports all day long. The chaos that follows when sheeple figure out that the TSA cannot protect them would be priceless. Chaos would ensue, the economy would tank overnight. That's real terrorism, I'd sleep soundly afterwards knowing I was doing my job.

The fact that they aren't doing this is just more proof that there's no real organized terrorists out there, just occasional lunatics (Boston).

All the security, all the gropings and inconvenience is just theater for the masses.

(And a way for a few people to get richer - the head of the TSA owns shares in the company that make the scanners ... surprise!)

Re:Futility of certain laws

[Mr. Slippery]

The primers used in modern ammunition. They are even harder to manufacture than good, clean gunpowder.

Certainly not much harder than methamphetamine, which the black market has little problem supplying.

Re:Futility of certain laws

[Shakrai]

I'd take my chances with the bullet.

80% of people shot with handguns survive. True statistic, learned it in a ballistics wounding seminar from a cardio-thoracic surgeon. I'd much rather face a handgun than a knife.

Layman just don't appreciate the energy differences between pistols and rifles. Pistols don't operate at the energy levels necessary for remote wounding effects, so they can only kill through two effects: Blood loss and the destruction/disablement of the central nervous system. The former takes time, sometimes a lot of it (stories abound of people surviving gun shot wounds for hours before finally receiving medical attention), whereas the latter is a comparatively small target that's only occasionally hit in a gunfight.

Rifles are a different animal entirely of course, but they're rarely used in crime and not something that those outside of the military generally need to concern themselves with.

Re:Futility of certain laws

[myowntrueself]

The thing that I'm not seeing take hold yet, but I think it will, is going beyond the concept of gun and ammunition for 3D printed weapons.

For example, I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to make a 3D printed mould for a small shaped charge, a 'stick' of some sort to attach the shaped charge to plus 'firing mechanism'. One would then take a disk of copper, not in itself likely to attract attention, fit the copper disk to the shaped charge, point it, fire it and the slug of molten copper could go through tank armor, let alone the door of say, an airliner cockpit.

Alternatively some kind of 'fragmentation projector' made of plastic, again probably with a shaped charge, which would propel plastic shrapnel at high speed and close quarters. One-shot, kills one person at point blank range, no metal components whatsoever.

I'm no weapons expert (to those who are this doubtless shows) but I'm sure there are ways to produce alternative weaponry using 3D printing technology and no conventional components apart from the explosives themselves.

You have to think outside the box and conventional ammunition is definitely 'in the box'.

Re:Futility of certain laws

[CrimsonAvenger]

Making a gun is relatively easy compared to making your own gunpowder

Says someone who has never made either.

Making either gunpowder or smokeless powder is dangerous. You could easily kill yourself being careless while doing so.

That said, it's not really all that hard - don't make a spark and/or use the usual handling precautions for nitric and sulfuric acid, and you're golden.

As to primers, it should be noted that they were mass-produced with 1850's technology - it's just not that difficult, if you know how.

Re:Futility of certain laws

[TheCarp]

> Rifles are a different animal entirely of course, but they're rarely used in crime and not something
> that those outside of the military generally need to concern themselves with.

Yup, last stats I saw on this said more people are killed with hammers than rifles in the US.

Re:Futility of certain laws

[foobar bazbot]

Let's for the sake of argument say that law enforcement is actually legitimately with a court order eavesdropping on Joe The Suspected Assassin's Internet use and monitoring his credit card use. They find out that he has bought a 3D printer + materials and also downloaded the files needed for printing it. Without this ban his actions have not yet yielded much more for law enforcement to go on but with this Joe's actions could be enough for law enforcement to get a search warrant since he can reasonably be suspected of committing a crime.

First, you don't need a search warrant at that point (though you'll get one, to look for evidence of other crimes), you can just arrest the guy! The BATF will be enforcing this, and they have a long-standing rule of "constructive possession", which is to say that they consider possessing all the pieces of an illegal gun to be the same as possessing that illegal gun* -- while this is a dubious doctrine legally, to my knowledge it's never been successfully challenged in court, in part because they pick what cases to use it on in court (cases where the defendant won't have a good defense team that might successfully challenge it), and in part because courts have a policy of assuming that the agency in charge of enforcing a given body of law (this goes for BATF, EPA, OSHA, etc.) is correct in their interpretation of that law, rather than the judge reviewing the law and overruling their interpretation. (Ostensibly, because it's better for everyone if the law is uniformly interpreted the same way in every court, so we accept an interpretation maintained by a single bureaucracy, rather than a dozen judges making different interpretations of the same poorly-drafted law.)

Now the problem with that rule is a problem with that rule, and with the BATF for making it, and with the courts for letting it stand, and we should fix it on those levels. However, until we do fix it, it's foolish not to take it into account when examining the consequences of the law. Any combination of law and agency rule that seems likely to practically criminalize possession of certain information (even if only when possessed in conjunction with a 3D printer) shouldn't be passed -- we need to fix the rule first, or change the law to explicitly rule out constructive possession.

*In case that sounds like a decent rule (considering the simple case where a thug disassembles his illegal weapon when he's not actively engaged in a job), an example of where this rule comes up: Say a guy has an AR-15 rifle (i.e. it has a buttstock and a >16" barrel), and wants to assemble an AR-15 pistol (which is essentially the same gun, except with no buttstock and a shorter barrel, perhaps 7"). He knows you're not allowed to build a pistol from rifle parts (particularly from the receiver, or in the case of the AR-15, the lower receiver, of a rifle), so instead of modifying his rifle, he orders a new 7" upper receiver+barrel assembly, and a new lower receiver that's virgin (i.e. never been made into a rifle, thus legal to build a pistol on), and miscellaneous parts needed to assemble these. Due to variations in shipping speed, and the requirement to have the lower receiver mailed to an FFL holder (i.e. gun store) and pick it up in person, let's suppose the 7" upper+barrel assembly arrives first. Now, according to the BATF, he possesses an illegal short-barrel rifle, because if he were to remove the >16" barrel assembly and replace it with the 7" barrel assembly, that's exactly what he'd have. (Once the other parts get here, he's clear again, because the BATF considers having a legal collection of fully-assembled guns accounting for every part to be legal -- to qualify for constructive possession, unassembled parts must be involved, either building an illegal weapon entirely from unassembled parts, or building one by swapping unassembled parts with their counterparts in an assembled weapon. To me this makes no bloody sense and looks like a transparent effort to make an unjust rule seem more reasonable in court, but YMMV.)

Re:Futility of certain laws

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

If I was a boss at Al-Qaeda I'd be getting people to stuff things up their ass and sending them to airports all day long. The chaos that follows when sheeple figure out that the TSA cannot protect them would be priceless.

Why stick to airports and explosives? Remember how long the 'Beltway Sniper' had that area freaking the hell out, all over some sort of cryptic, dubiously well planned and almost entirely unfunded, scheme to shoot some people because something or other? Two guys, a cheap gun(stolen in their case; but equivalent gear is widely legal, it was just one of the zillion civilianized AR-15s and variants), and a shitty car, basically zero money, and the place was shitting itself for a couple of weeks.

If 'terrorists' were actually a threat, as opposed to a theatrical-but-statistically-insignificant risk, (bolstered, with considerable dishonesty, by the people who classify assorted Afghani and Iraqi and whatnot militants fighting either us or one another as 'terrorists'), every decent-size metropolitan area would have somebody driving around bagging civilians at random most of the time, and you'd have to sweep under the bleachers for IEDs before every little-league game, lest the adoring parents get spattered all the way to 3rd base.

The morals of the story are that (A)There just aren't that many terrorists, and most of them are kind of dumb or interested in things other than the continental US; and (B) The TSA (in addition to being largely feckless) is a magnificent example of 'gearing up to fight the last war'. Even if the TSA were scary, and they aren't (except to non-terrorists), why bother hitting a plane, again? Be like a terrorist hipster: Hijacking is so, mainstream, man. I'm listening to this obscure post 9/11 group called 'unsecured rail lines near population centers', you probably haven't heard of them...

Re:Futility of certain laws

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Did you miss that thing were they took control of the airplanes and then used them as missiles? You assume the terrorist wants to survive the attack...

Which is the sort of attack that only works once (since information flow didn't really occur between the planes hijacked at the same time, I'm counting that as 'once').

All through the 70s and 80s, hijacking was nearly continuous; but there was also a sort of etiquette about it. Some dude would pull a gun/threaten a bomb/etc., rant a bit, demand to be taken to $SOMEWHERE$, the plane would eventually have to land to refuel, there'd be a standoff, and it'd be considered a really botched operation if casualties were above 10%. Under such circumstances, why would anybody try anything dumb and heroic? Odds were extremely good that you'd be inconvenienced for a day or two, then some commando squad, depending on where you landed, would shoot the guy, and that would be that.

Now that the planes-as-missiles tactic is known, cockpit doors are trivially easy and cheap to reinforce, and passengers know that compliance is not a value-rational strategy. Under such circumstances, pulling off a successful hijack is much harder. Do you have enough guys, or enough very-nasty close combat weapons to survive or deter a zerg rush? Can you breach the cockpit door? If the pilot says "Fuck you, I'd rather crash right here than crash where you want me to!" and puts the plane into a deeply-unrecommended-by-Boeing dive, can you recover from that after you cut him and shove the body off the seat?

Re:Futility of certain laws

[Bartles]

All you need to make one is a piece of brass and a lathe from Harbor Freight. They are drawn, because it better suits high levels of production, not because it is necessary.

Re:Futility of certain laws

[VortexCortex]

Well, then shove a tube and some extra stuff up there, then bend over and aim it?

Fire in the Hole!

Re:Futility of certain laws

[Joiseybill]

Check any Home Depot / Lowes or other hardware store for a concrete nail gun. No permits required, use black powder, primer-actuated .22 / .27 caliber rounds to drive a projectile into concrete. Variable loads (powder content) are definitely available, different gauges may be - I never looked that closely. It just seems silly that in the most-regulated gun states, you can effectively buy a gun , as long as you call it a "tool" and sell it at a non-"gun" store. http://www.homedepot.com/p/Hilti-DX-36-0-27-Caliber-Semi-Automatic-Powder-Actuated-Tool-384033/100527172

Some sort of gun-revealing device

[Sockatume]

If only there was some way to ensure that the guns contained a large, metal object that would show up on an x-ray. You could make such an object out of a dense metal like lead to ensure that it showed up.

Re:Some sort of gun-revealing device

[berryjw]

Right. Or perhaps several of these objects. Has anyone seen my paper-weight??

King Canute eat your heart out

[Bruce66423]

One can either laugh or cry at the desperate attempts of our technologically ignorant leaders to hold back the inevitable. There is a spin that suggests that Canute was trying to get his sycophantic courtiers to see sense by showing them that he could not stop the incoming tides; perhaps a similar lesson is needed here.

Wooden crossbow...

[amalcolm]

..lethal at close range, just as undetectable!

Remind me why this is needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's already illegal to conceal carry without a permit, it's illegal to shoot someone else. Why do we need yet another law telling us that it's illegal to possess these weapons? If someone is going to 3D print a gun and use it to commit a crime, they really don't care if it's illegal.

Besides, all the government needs is one story about a poorly constructed 3D printed gun that exploded when fired and injured the would be shooter

Re:Remind me why this is needed?

[MitchDev]

Agreed.
No new law should be allowed to be passed unless:

1 - Written in plain English, no legalese, the layman MUST be able to parse it and understand it
                        AND
2 - No more that 2 pages at most.
                      AND
3 - Two or more existing laws are repealed for each new law passed (This can be revised down to one-for-one once the current lawbooks are cut to 1/4 their current size)

Re:Remind me why this is needed?

[Hognoxious]

Because of course it's been scientifically proven that having 0.25000000 times the current number of laws is the optimum.

Re:Remind me why this is needed?

[Sarten-X]

Allow me to rephrase that for you:

1 - I don't understand law

2 - We shouldn't make stuff I don't understand

3 - Let's just get rid of stuff I don't understand

The majority of every long legal text is there to be explicitly precise about every detail of how it's supposed to work. As new loopholes are found in existing terms, new language is used in future texts to avoid them.

For example, a hundred years ago, it might have been fine to say "buy" in a contract to refer to someone getting something, but thanks to the last hundred years of legal cases, there are many ways to avoid that particular term. You could trade for goods other than money. You could arrange a sequence of gifts. The exchange could be interrupted by a sudden death. Part of the exchange could be specified in a will. Once the trade is made, the items bought could come with attached expectations or conditions, or it could be part of a package deal.

Consider law as a program for illogical machines. Just as any other programming language requires verbosity (or a significant amount of definitions) to achieve precision, so must law. Humans are just particularly good at exploiting bugs.

Re:Remind me why this is needed?

[TheCarp]

I think the problem is that once someone is shot it is already too late. By making it illegal to aim a gun at someone or to carry a (loaded) gun in populated areas it is possible to stop someone before the actual shooting has taken place.

Funny, I can't think of a single time where someone pulled a gun on someone else, was stopped before shooting them, and then was let free because they broke no laws. I can't even think of a single time I heard a cop say "we wanted to take him down before he shot someone, but damn if he hadn't broken a law yet". Not even once.

Frankly I think the problem is people lack any interest in really understanding the causes of violence and instead just pick their favorite scapegoat out of paranoia and overactive imaginations.

Never mind that the only people who could be said to really be shooting at eachother with any regularity in the entire US are gang members, and occasionally, the police (or police and people's dogs maybe, but that conflict is kind of one sided).

But no clearly, guns are the problem and not the bad drug policy that funds the gangs, and had lead to the systematic disenfranchisement of entire swaths of communities. No lets focus on the symptom some more, guns are much easier to solve....in our imaginations.

Re:Remind me why this is needed?

[Voyager529]

The majority of every long legal text is there to be explicitly precise about every detail of how it's supposed to work. As new loopholes are found in existing terms, new language is used in future texts to avoid them.

See, that's why I figure that the best way to address the situation is to divide up a bill like this:

Paragraph 1: The mission statement. What is the essence of the bill, and what is it ultimately trying to accomplish in broadest terms?
Paragraph 2: The general rules. State what the bill says is or is not acceptable, as it would apply to the overwhelming majority of cases. Rules that do not directly reflect the mission statement are dismissed from the bill (no more riders or earmarks).
Paragraph 3: Funding and enforcement. Who is paying for it, and who is ensuring that the rule is enforced?
Paragraph 4: Duration. How long will this bill last before it needs to be renewed? 15 years, tops.
Pages 2-10: Exceptions and legal speak. These are the pages intended to close loopholes, answer for as many exotic cases as possible, and be the part that is referenced if a court case needs examining. All statements made here must explicitly clarify and apply to Paragraph 2, and are subject to Paragraphs 3 and 4.

This way, the bill is divided up into the parts that are legible by any reasonable person, and the parts that ensure that define the rules of the court cases involving more unique situations.

Re:Remind me why this is needed?

[Arker]

I think you are missing his point here.

A critical element for any just set of laws is that the people who are subject to them get fair warning of what those laws are. When the law grows so enormous that even the law makers and the law arguers cannot possibly know and understand them all, it is no longer a system of justice and demands reform.

huh?

[TitusGroan8856]

I thought that the firing pin and the bullets were still metal and therefore detectable?

Re:huh?

[DarkOx]

They have been but one of the reasons for that was to comply with this law, which has now expired.

Trouble is if you are a criminal with the facility to print a weapon you what incentive do you have for not breaking one more law when you already are intent on committing a serious felony?

This is a prefect case of if you criminalize guns that undetectable by metal detectors than only criminals will have undetectable guns. Now mind you I can't think of to many reasons a non criminal *needs* a completely metal free gun; but as a practical matter I don't see what this really accomplishes. When the law was originally conceived it was to prevent the legitimate mass manufacture of such weapons which would have reduced the availability of them and that might have been societally useful; now that we are talking about a weapon the user is likely to produce themselves I am not sure what the point is.

I suppose its an extra change a prosecutor might be able to hang someone on, who has been able to evade other serious charges on technicalities though.

Re:huh?

[multimediavt]

I thought that the firing pin and the bullets were still metal and therefore detectable?

You are correct, sir. That's why this hysteria is a little silly. The bullet casing would not only set off a metal detector it would show up in x-ray or body scanning machines as well. There is no place to hide the most dangerous part of a gun, the ammunition, so why worry about secured areas. The worst thing this bypasses is the background check and waiting period. Not to say that's not a concern, but a plastic gun that may fire one to eight bullets before being inert is no AK-47 or AR-15. In the grand scheme "real" guns still pose a greater risk to public safety.

"Undetectable" is a strong word

[EmagGeek]

If it is made of matter, it is detectable.

Re:Response to this will be interesting

[Sarten-X]

Hardly.

While I'm sure there are some businessmen who don't really care about the nature of their business, there's also folks who think that guns should be widespread among responsible people in responsible circumstances - A nutjob with an undetectable pistol is riskier than a responsible person carrying an assault rifle. Then there's the pro-gun-business types who see 3d-printed guns as a boon. Sure, somebody might print a gun instead of buying one, but the businesses make the real thing, ripe for collectors who are willing to pay more to have a metal original, rather than a plastic copy. Of course, we also can't discount the political folks who will support or oppose the law just because it came from the Democrats.

I'm terribly sorry, but people are different and have different opinions. Their response to one idea does not characterize them.

Pronunciation Lesson

[McGruber]

A New Yorker explained to me that, in NYC, the correct pronunciation is Schmuck Schumer.

Re:He needs to have the guts to go further

[timothy]

That's why it's such a safe country now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Venezuela

The tool is being blamed again

[n2hightech]

Better plastic guns can be built from blocks of plastic and hand tools then can be built using 3D printers. Why are they not freaking out about that. All these laws do is trip up good people exploring the capabilities of new technology. They do not address the issue of people wanting to use guns on others. We need to be addressing the issue of hate not method of gun construction.

Gun question

[MobyDisk]

What are the bullets made of? Are they detectable? Also: Don't we need plastic guns if Magneto attacks?

He's an idiot

[g0bshiTe]

First yes the gun may be undetectable but there are a few things it needs to be able to fire that are detectable. There needs to be a spring for the firing pin, the pin itself may be plastic but needs some type of device to make it detonate the primer cap. The bullet casings are also metal and will set off detectors.

So no Senator Idiot, what you have that is undetectable is a useless model of a gun. It would be more dangerous to print a 3d knife and sneak it in somewhere.

Some Fun Statistics To Look Up On Teh Internets

[Greyfox]

Number of terrorists caught by the TSA. Number of people killed by plastic guns in the last 10 years. Number of people killed on 9/11. Number of people killed by gun violence last year. Number of people killed in auto accidents last year. Number of people killed in household accidents last year.

Ooh here's an idea! Let's redirect a small percentage of the funds going to the TSA to enforcing safe driving and educating people on the dangers of poking things with sticks while standing on ladders. We'll save far more lives with far less effort. I guess a couple hundred thousand deaths a year isn't a big deal if some 24 hour news network isn't being hysterical about it.

Chuck Schumer

[Charliemopps]

Can't we all agree that when certain political figures speak (Chuck Schumer, Sarah Palin, Nancy Palosi, Charlie Rangle, Michele Bachmann, etc) that we should just all collectively plug our ears and say "Nanananananana" as the thing they are about to say is likely an appeal to the citizens of our country with IQ's bellow 90, to reduce our freedoms, increase government power and generally bring ruin to the country in the name of some un-realized threat that sounds scary but could never really cause us much harm?

Chuck Schumer is either:
a. an idiot and does not realize he can not stop home made weapons, they've existed since the country was founded, there's just a slightly new method.
b. fully aware that this legislation is pointless and is just pandering to make headline with whatever made up fear 20/20 came up with for this week.

I predict that...

[J'raxis]

I predict that this will be about a successful as all other attempts to ban information has been. But don't let that stop you. And just to help out, here's a link to DefDist's DefCAD Mega Pack v4.2 (Saito) again, the file I mirrored when the DOD tried to suppress it.

Wood stocks are undetectable too!

[katorga]

Gee. The bullet is brass copper and lead. The barrel is steel. I guess old school guns with wood stocks would be undetectable as well according to the periodic table in Mr. Schumer's world.

For less than $4000, anyone can get a gunsmiths metal working setup, and build any gun they want. In fact its perfectly legal for anyone to build an firearm with no serial number as long as its not an NFA restricted weapon like a machine gun and it is not for sale or transfer.

Putting the cart before the horse.

[Dareth]

They should just make killing people illegal. Surely that will stop someone from using any weapon to do it because criminals always obey the law.

And note it is the Democrats threatening it

[SuperKendall]

Please note that while they mentioned the main bill sponsor is a Democrat, ALL of the bill sponsors are Democrats.

As we have seen through history the only real fascists have always been liberal.

Do not make the mistake again in thinking just because the Democrats espouse support for popular things you believe in, that you should vote for them - they will just continue to clamp down tighter the longer they are in power!

I support gay marriage and other social issues too, but supporting the Democrats is the wrong way to bring about changes in that arena - in order for the government to make any social change, it means they MUST reduce your rights and ability to make choices in some way.

The better way to bring about social change is the way the gay marriage movement has done so, by winning hearts and minds through the media - NOT through force and telling people what they must support from on-high.

Re:And note it is the Democrats threatening it

[chihowa]

Please note that while they mentioned the main bill sponsor is a Democrat, ALL of the bill sponsors are Democrats.

Absolutely, because gun ownership is one of the authoritarian policies that is largely supported by people who self-identify as Democrats. Just like banning abortion and gay marriage, and enforcing Christian mores are popular authoritarian policies with the Republicans.

Don't make the mistake of extrapolating this one data point into the assumption that all authoritarians wear a (D), though. Both the Democrats and Republicans are highly authoritarian. The end of this game is a highly authoritarian US. If the Ds push their authoritarian policies when they can get away with it and the Rs do the same, then they both win in the end. As long as people excuse and allow the authoritarian movements when "their" party does it, we keep moving toward the horrible dystopia. It's like a terrible ratchet.

Re:And note it is the Democrats threatening it

[ravenshrike]

And yet the subversives in the republican party are the only ones who have even attempted to get serious about replacing the status quo, for good or ill. Where are all the radicals in the left wishing to take out the likes of Schumer and Feinstein and making a serious attempt at it even if they fail?

Re:And note it is the Democrats threatening it

[microbox]

As we have seen through history the only real fascists have always been liberal

This is just partisan nonsense. If you actually, you know, read about fascism, you'll learn that it doesn't fit into the current left/right political divide.

People generally think of fascism as far-right because:

• The emphasis on militarism
• The emphasis on nationalism. (Do you here that America was exceptional?)
• The emphasis on colonialism
• The emphasis on mysticism and the state
• The emphasis on warriorship
• Suppression of trade unions
• Foreign policy based on the myth of national power and greatness
• Skepticism in democracy.

These are all defining qualities of facism that you see on the political right *today*

But facism is also leftist in that:

• It broadens the mandate for government intervention in the economy
• It is anti-materialist. (I suppose people in facists states seek spiritual sustenance.)

Furthermore, both the Dems and the GOP (in practice) have an overlapping facist trait: the belief in the states role in monitoring its citizens. This is a true 3rd rail in US politics, since as many Rs/Ds are for it as against it.

Fascism has traits not seen in either the Dems or the GOP, such as endorsing terror to gain political power, and the notion that the entire population should be permanently and emotionally engaged in the political process.

Stop reading just right-wing books, and broaden your horizon a little. Just because you read it doesnt mean you have to believe it. And just because something is written down doesn't make it true. Real scholarship starts when you seek out differing views, and try to understand them.

Re:And note it is the Democrats threatening it

[shutdown -p now]

The fringe in the Republican party is more visible and prominent then that in the Democratic party (actually electing representatives etc), because mainstream Republican strategy has been a massive trainwreck for a long time now, and the party is desperately looking for alternatives, with one side saying that they need to be more moderate, especially on social issues, and the other (far more vocal) side screaming that they are not conservative enough. Dems, OTOH, are doing pretty well with their voter base at the booths with the moderates in charge, and so fringe movements in the party are never in the spotlight.

Even so, if you look at the polls, about 1/3 of registered Democrats are pro-gun.

Re:Half Lies

[PPH]

And therein lies the problem with printable guns. They can be manufactured easily as one-off items that won't be recognized from one instance to the next. Of course, the same can be done in a machine shop with metal.

Finland

[Shakrai]

In nearly all of Europe after WWII there were guns, grenades, and explosives all over the place. They seem to have done a good job at makine most (but not all) of them go away and not be widely available

You've never been to Finland, have you?