Slashdot Mirror
3-D Printed Gun Ban Fails In Senate
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from The Daily Dot:"On Monday evening, a bill aimed at thwarting the production and distribution of plastic 3-D printed weapons was blocked by Senate Republicans. ... The debate over the new legislation centered around the 1988 Undetectable Firearms Act, which bans the production and distribution of weapons that skirt 'walk through metal detectors.' The act has been renewed on two occasions since its passage. It was due to expire again on the 9th of December. The House voted to renew the bill last week. The rise of 3-D printing has made this year's renewal more complicated in the Senate. Many lawmakers, particularly Democrats, feel the current Undetectable Firearms Act inadequately addresses the rising threat posed by printed plastic weapons."
CBS Says it passed
I believe the Senate Democrats wanted to create a new, tougher bill. The bill that started in the house was passed by both the house and senate. President Obama signed the bill.
If we can delay it long enough, 3d printing might get good enough that all gun control is moot. We can defeat it like we defeated the Clipper Chip - by letting the cat out of the bag.
Why create a whole new law when the existing one is perfectly adequate?
All of us commit three felonies a day because those asshats in our legislatures just keep piling the laws on to solve non-existent problems.
This is yet another distraction by the ruling class to keep our minds off of our continually declining standard of living.
Undetectable guns are already banned. The failed legislation was a modification to require inclusion of metal components that would be hard to remove. If you think about it, that doesn't make much sense....its either detectable or its not. Those with criminal intent would not likely be deterred by this minor modification.
Why does the article bring up Sandy Hook? It has nothing to do with this issue.
No matter where you go, there you are.
Been done. DAG (German military ammo maker) made/makes plastic training rounds in 762x51 NATO (aka 308 Winchester), they can be lethal under 100 yards.
Or, go muzzle loader (not a gun per federal law then) and use a piezoelectric spark to ignite your powder, use a glass marble or other non-metallic item (ceramic?) as your bullet. Plenty effective at short ranges.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Not in the U.S. in most localities.
Any person who is legally able to purchase and own a firearm may manufacture their own, so long as it is not intended for re-sale --- the BATF has been very stringent on that last point of late, so it's pretty much impossible to transfer a personally-manufactured firearm.
Please note that the BATF is only interested in the last 20% or so of a firearm, so one may make and sell partially-finished (up to 80%) receivers w/o any need for an FFL.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Some of us don't want to live in a Mad Max style dystopia where every criminal, racist, and nut case can get their hands on whatever gun they want.
You already live in that world. The only question left is if every sane and law abiding citizen should also be able to get a gun to protect themselves.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The stupidity of banning 3D guns is that you are trying to ban something someone does in the privacy of their own home.
Laws that are utterly unenforceable and just exist to make people feel good have no place in our world.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yeah, why spent $1000 for a 3D printer when you can spend $100 and get a weapon that is far less likely to blow up and take off your hand?
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Which is actually why it makes it a stupid law.
Its only benefit would be able to charge someone with more fines and problems when they have already performed an illegal act.
People: We have a Gun that is undetectable by normal means.
Government: We can't have that because people who want to hurt people with guns can get past detection. So lets make a law to fix that.
People: So If I wanted to hurt someone with a gun, which is already breaking a bunch of laws, I will just need to break one more.
Government: Thats right, and it will save you money because we will not need to invest into finding ways to track your gun.
Why doesn't the government add an extra $100 fine for performing an illegal activity.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Government works the same way. How else did we get the Patriot Act, NSA funding for all that evil nonsense, more and more draconian "hacking" laws, as well as "terrorist" laws? How else do they justify dragging grammar school children out of their classrooms for pointing a fingers and saying "Bang!"
Welcome to the 21st Century, Comrade.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
This! I really wish I had mod points right now. This is the crux of all these gun related laws. They are presented as a way to prevent specific crimes from happening again. The stupid part is making some of these things illegal wouldn't have changed the crime that happened before. What the politicians and most of the unwashed masses don't get is making one more aspect of the event illegal doesn't magically prevent it from happening. All it does is add on one more charge. Someone who's desperate or crazy enough to commit the crime anyway, isn't going to suddenly stop because now they're violating one more law.
The whole Undetectable Firearm Act has always been a piss in the wind . There is no such things as full polymer/plastic undetectable firearms mainstream firearm. Most of this is pure paranoia following the introduction of Glock pistols, but guess what ? There is plenty of metal part in a Glock, unless of course you believe Die Hard 2 is a reliable source of firearm information. The barrel, the action are mostly metal, that is the parts handling most of the stress. Only the frame and other low stress stressed parts are made of polymer. Even without the UFA, there would be no point in a full polymer firearm, the materials just don't have the strength to handle the stress and pressure of a round going off, not to mention the rifling in the barrel would wear out pretty quick...
Ummm. It is already completely illegal to sell a gun without being a licenses manufacturer (read "company with deep pockets). Nobody in their right mind would actually sell a plastic gun due to the liability issues involved. Gets smuggled past a metal detector = massive law suits from relatives of victims = no more company.
First, the law was first passed once the first Glocks came out with a polymer frame. All Glocks have been VERY detectible with any metal detector, as the barrel and slide are all solid metal. So this law was passed out of complete ignorance and an irrational fear for something that, quite simply, was not a problem in the first place. Yes, the law makers that want to tightly regulate guns do not actually know much about them -- what a surprise.
Now, this law is trying to be applied to home printers. Really, all you will have to do is buy the printer and set it up. Download the design files, and run them through the printer. Add ammo and shoot. Assuming that your printer is good enough, and that the files are formatted for your particular model of printer, then making your own gun should be pretty easy -- well within the reach of anybody with a few thousand to blow on a printer. Currently, there might be software issues, but I am sure that printing will get easier as time goes on, not harder.
As to there being little public benefit in plastic guns, there is little benefit to the law itself. People who intend to do bad things with guns are not going to be stopped by yet another law. Honest citizens will do anything wrong even with a plastic gun.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Right now you can be a law abiding gun owner in one town, but drive over the city or state line and you are a criminal.We need better and fewer gun control regulations that make it easier for law abiding people to own guns for self defense and comply with the law and yet keeps guns out of the hands of felons and the dangerously insane.
The fundamental, if not always stated, purpose of most of these gun laws is to make it harder for law abiding people to own guns. With the goal of reducing the number of guns in circulation. By creating a climate of fear and uncertainty, about compliance with gun laws, gun control advocates are trying to isolate gun owners politically through attrition in their numbers over time.
I do agree that a society with fewer guns will in fact reduce the overall number of gun deaths. My concern is that the trade off between the short term goal of safety which would trade away an enduring Liberty just isn't worth it. And will ultimately lead to a less safe and secure society as the people that control the guns both legally through the government or illegally through criminal gangs will feel more emboldened to oppress and threaten those without effective means of self defense.
My ideal is a society where people don't threaten to take away people's second amendment rights and fewer and fewer people feel the need to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. The only thing that the recent push to further regulate guns (on top of layer upon layer of current gun control laws) has done is increase the number of guns in society. Not only is gun control a failure, it is counter-productive to its own express goals.
People that are willing and able to take on the responsibility of gun ownership should do so and our government should support them with reasonable regulations and laws and not burden them with unnecessary, redundant and conflicting laws as is the case now.