Gun Rights Hacktivists To Fab 3D-Printed Guns At State Capitol

giulioprisco writes On January 13th Come And Take Texas (CATI) will be manufacturing 3D-printed firearms on location at the State Capitol. In 2013 Defense Distributed made public the 3D printable files (STL files) for the world's first fully 3D printable gun. Their more recent Ghost Gunner is designed to automatically manufacture publicly created designs with nearly zero user interaction. According to CATI’s website, “In the last year and a half Texan Gun Rights Groups all around the Lone Star State have walked, assembled, and engaged in Humanitarian efforts all while Open Carrying their Long Guns and Black Powder Pistols. This has succeeded in Educating the Public as well as Law Enforcement, to show that the presence of Firearms in Public is not only Safe but Highly supported.”

Comments

Thanks, assholes

[rainwalker]

If there's anything that'll push forward legal restrictions on 3D printers/home CNC, it'll be assholes like this making a media push over how easy it is to make weapons and OMG THE CHILDREN. This is why we can't have nice things.

Re:Thanks, assholes

[AmiMoJo]

Times and technology change, the law has to be updated. The current rules seem to be based on the fact that few people have the ability or means to produce their own reliable and accurate firearms. As such the requirement that purchased weapons have a serial number and some traceability, as well as restrictions on who can buy them in some areas, was considered reasonable by law makers.

3D printers will allow anyone to print a reliable and somewhat accurate weapon cheaply one day. At the moment they are still expensive, but won't stay that way for long. As such, the law may need to change in order to maintain the status quo, or a decision will have to be made to accept that untraceable non-metal weapons in widespread ownership.

Re: Thanks, assholes

[RabidReindeer]

You don't need guns to take down a bunch of clowns with boxcutters when there's 200 of you and 4 of them.

What was lacking wasn't firearms, it was the realization that the usual way of dealing with hijackers no longer worked. Flight 93 was warned in time to change to a more active response. If they'd known even earlier, they might have even been able to save the pilots.

Re: Thanks, assholes

[TheCarp]

Well yes and no. The main thing that 9/11 hijackers exploited was NOT the fact that passengers were disarmed but, the fact that previous hijackings all resulted in hostage situations. Seriously, you are sitting in a seat, on an airplane, going somewhere.

In a pre-9/11 world (ugh i can't believe I said that), what is your expectation when a hijacking happens? You expect the plane will be grounded, the hijackers will make demands. Eventually they will either be killed and arrested, but you are going to be released within a couple of days, unharmed.

A small crowd can easily overpower a couple of hijackers with knives. The reason they didn't was simply that everyone expected they were going to be walking out alive and well within a few days.

Re:Thanks, assholes

[necro81]

3D printers will allow anyone to print a reliable and somewhat accurate weapon cheaply one day. At the moment they are still expensive, but won't stay that way for long

The notion of a "reliable and somewhat accurate weapon" coming from a $2,000 FDM (fused deposition modeling, i.e., plastic extruder) is laughable and drastically oversells the ability of the technology. Oh, sure, you can produce a gun today that'll kill someone, but don't expect 3D printers to enable the next Continental Army.

Perhaps a gunsmith could say otherwise, but my understanding is that a "reliable and somewhat accurate weapon" requires metal. 3D printing of metal is going to stay expensive for a long time, maybe for good, if only because the power it takes to sinter/melt metal is high and isn't going down. A 40-kW laser in every tinkerer's basement isn't likely. I've seen FDM-like metal printers that are more or less wire welders on an XYZ base, but the results leave much to be desired. Even then, a printed metal part will still need a decent amount of post-machining, in which case you may be better off fab'ing your gun from solid stock.

(I use 3D printing (FDM, SLS, DLMS) in my day-to-day job, have experience with hobbyist 3D printers)

Re: Thanks, assholes

[Jason Levine]

Just to add to your comment, during the pre-9/11 days, standing up to the terrorists risked injury or death. Sitting quietly virtually guaranteed you'd emerge unharmed.

The 9/11 terrorists exploited this mindset but that's a one time deal. If some terrorists were to try to take over a plane tomorrow, the passengers wouldn't just sit quietly since now sitting quietly equals certain death. When one option is certain death, fighting back is a better option even if you might die in the process.

Re: Thanks, assholes

[LDAPMAN]

Actually, the data shows the opposite. The areas with the highest density of legal guns have the lowest crime. The most commonly cited example is Kennesaw GA.

http://rense.com/general9/gunl...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

Re: Thanks, assholes

[harrkev]

Since when does "disarm everybody" work that well on crime?

Austalia had a great "gun-ban" and their homicide rate DID go down (it wend down MORE here is the USA during the same period, but why bother with facts). Let's look at one of the consequences:

http://www.aic.gov.au/dataTool...

Choose Homicide, 1995 and Homicide, 2012. The number of gun homicides, by percentage, looks almost EXACTLY the same. Firearm usage in murder dropped from 18.38% to17.5% Wow. WHAT A SLAM DUNK! There might be a LOT of reasons for the decrease in homicide rate, but apparently less than 1% can be attributed to banning guns. Wow, that makes a difference, huh?

I know, Australia is also cracking down on knife crime too, and cops can hassle a person for carrying a Leatherman -- nice freedom over there guys.

Re: Thanks, assholes

[BlueStrat]

Your "belief" does not, however, trump the reality that an increased number of people carrying weapons for self defense purposes creates a safer society.

Citation needed.

Look at it like this: The only effective counter to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. There are more good people than bad people. Bad people will always have access to guns because they do not follow laws or restrictions.Therefor, having more of the general public armed means more good guys with guns than bad guys with guns. Q.E..D.

Strat

Re: Thanks, assholes

[mi]

the second amendment speaks of redcoats and muskets

No, actually, neither word is found anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

then there is the whole *well-regulated* part: trianing, proficiency, responsibility, level headedness *BEFORE* you get a gun.

If we read the 1st Amendment the way you propose we read the 2nd, then your Freedom of Speech would also be limited — to Petitioning the Government. And only for Redress of Grievances. And only after a cool-off period. And only using the medium in existence back then — not on radio, TV, or the Internet.

As things stand, however, we consider selling pornography on the Internet and the publishing of bomb-making instructions to be protected by the 1st Amendment...

the second amendment is nothing at all like the dirty harry fiction

Huh? I think, you got carried away...

Re: Thanks, assholes

[shocking]

You've carefully elided the fact that homicide rate in Australia is about a quarter of that of the US. The reason the homicide rate in the US fell more, is because it had a lot further to fall - and it's still four times that of Australia! You might consider the trade-off worthwhile, the tree of liberty needing to be watered by the blood of innocents from time to time and all that, but we don't. Over here you look like a bunch of crazed loons.

The knife thing is about knives over a certain size (poor Crocodile Dundee!). I have carted around a Leatherman (the knife) plenty of times and have not been hassled.

Re:however, Proper Capitalization

[belthize]

I blame all the pinko commie anti-capitalists.

Not doing what they're thinking

[GameboyRMH]

They think they're protesting against gun control, but they're actually making a powerful and probably effective protest for 3D printer control.

Re:Kudos to 2nd Amendment activists!

[hweimer]

Because a right not exercised is a right lost .

Does this also apply to the Right to Die?

Priveldge Protest

[T.E.D.]

Interesting country, where white folks earnestly protest that they should be able to openly carry weapons and not be viewed as a threat, while black folks have to protest that they should be able to walk around unarmed and not be viewed as a threat.

All just show ...

[gstoddart]

If you don't plan on using any of these much vaunted gun rights to defend the other rights in your Constitution, WTF is the point?

If you're going to say "well, the 1st amendment is shot, the 4th is being ignored, the 5th is being tramped on, but I have my gun" ... why the hell are you even bothering??

Why are none of you gun advocates killing off the NSA officials and the rest of the security people who are shitting all over the rest of your fucking rights? Or are you just a bunch of one trick ponies who only give a crap about your guns?

If so, you should seriously STFU and start worrying about the other rights they've been taking away from you. Otherwise you're just a bunch of children playing cowboy.

Or should we conclude gun advocates are totally OK with tyranny and the erosion of your other rights?

If you won't defend the rest of your Constitutional rights, you don't deserve this one either.

Pathetic.

This fight is intentional - printing guns is legal

[zerofoo]

Most gun control laws, as currently written, are unconstitutional. The reason they have stood for so long is either challenges were not brought, or the supremes refused to hear the case.

Heller and Peruta affirmed the individual right to bear arms for the purposes of individual self-defense as well as group defense . It is legal to manufacture firearms for personal use (and always has been). Licensing and serialization are only required if you choose to manufacture arms for sale to others.

The bottom line is that manufacturing your own weapons is legal - as per the ATF FAQ:

http://www.atf.gov/files/firea...

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).

Currently there is a very pro-gun trend throughout the country. I do not see lawmakers stomaching any more gun-control any time soon. Personally, I would like to see many of our unconstitutional gun-control laws repealed or struck down by the courts.