Slashdot Mirror


FedEx Won't Ship DIY Gunsmithing Machine

An anonymous reader writes Last fall, Defense Distributed — the company created by Cody Wilson of 3D-printed gun fame — announced a DIY gunsmithing machine called the Ghost Gunner. Now, FedEx is refusing to ship the device, saying there are laws or regulations that would prohibit them from shipment. A FedEx spokesperson said, "This device is capable of manufacturing firearms, and potentially by private individuals. We are uncertain at this time whether this device is a regulated commodity by local, state or federal governments. As such, to ensure we comply with the applicable law and regulations, FedEx declined to ship this device until we know more about how it will be regulated." Wilson argues, "They’re acting like this is legal when in fact it’s the expression of a political preference. The artifact that they’re shipping is a CNC mill. There’s nothing about it that is specifically related to firearms except the hocus pocus of the marketing."

320 comments

  1. Oh bullshit! by rfengr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are no regulations covering firearms manufacturing equipment; at least not YET. They are just covering their asses.

    1. Re:Oh bullshit! by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Wonder what the Justice Department has to hold over their heads.

      How soon before they find something to hold over the heads of UPS?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:Oh bullshit! by taniwha · · Score: 1

      yes they are, companies do that, ass covering is often an important thing to do - FEDEX doesn't have to carry anything they don't want to, especially something that might put them in a legal liability situation

    3. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now get hired by FedEx as their corporate counsel, and affirm this for them, so they can say their insurance is happy.

    4. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And yet Cody Wilson and his ilk, some of the world's biggest libertarians, are upset that a private company like FedEx refuses to carry their packages? Yawn. Come back to me when the USPS refuses (and then we'll talk about how they are semi-private as well thanks to previous tax-cutting and libertarian action).

    5. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FedEx/UPS/USPS have ZERO fucking clue about what they actually ship to or from anywhere...

    6. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure they're pissed they're using a bullshit "legal" cop-out to cover for a politically motivated rationale.

      It's not liability, it's pure and simple "we don't like guns". There is no reasonable reason why this should be regulated, or come back to bite FedEx.

    7. Re:Oh bullshit! by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wonder what the Justice Department has to hold over their heads.

      The same thing they have to hold over everyone's heads: a large number of lawyers looking to right the wrongs their employer tells them to. Also the IRS. They don't need any actual wrongdoing, just the lawyers.

    8. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh, so Cody Wilson wants to restrict companies' rights to free speech, including the right to make up whatever excuse they want when they don't choose to do something?

    9. Re:Oh bullshit! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      if the product is leagal (as a CNC mill is) there is no legit reason for a shipping company not to take the package.

      This is nothing but targeted discrimination. where is the ACLU???

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    10. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's what the Justice Department MIGHT hold over their heads in the future or what regulations (for the good of the people, no doubt) will be issued that might damage their ability to operate.

      Corporations don't operate without the consent of the government. If a corporation doesn't play ball with the government, the government will find a way to exert pressure.

      This relationship also explains why the government tolerates a few, big corporations rather than many small corporations.

      A few, big corporations are much more easily dealt with.

      Want private data concerning a person's associates? Just call Facebook up. If they don't cooperate, threaten to charge them with an attempt to monopolize, or to block their next buyout, or to create regulations that make them less profitable.

      If it seems like big corporations control everything, it's because the government likes it that way, because ultimately the government controls them.

    11. Re:Oh bullshit! by aaron4801 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      UPS recently paid $40 million dollars because they shipped fake drugs. Like they were supposed to open all the packages and verify the contents? FedEx is currently facing fines for up to $1.6 Billion for the same. This may be totally unrelated, but at the very least, they are likely not in the mood to go poking the government in the eye over a niche product.

    12. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are a metric ton of federal laws covering firearms manufacturing equipment

      Oh, really. If there are a metric tonne of these laws, it shouldn't prove too difficult for you to post but just three of them. Not laws covering manufacturing certain firearms which are not in common usage, not laws covering usage, transportation, export, import, neither laws covering certain tax code advantages levied to manufacturing in general, nor laws covering rectal prostrate stimulation with firearms, marriage with or bondage to firearms, or any some such thing. Any US Federal law code, related specifically to equipment or machinery which might be used in the manufacture of firearms will do. Let's have it.

      I won't be holding my breath.

    13. Re:Oh bullshit! by msauve · · Score: 2
      But there are laws covering motor carriers, including FedEx Ground. My understanding (lawyers feel free to step in) is that they must carry goods per their tariff, which does not prohibit the equipment in question.

      A carrier providing transportation or service subject to jurisdiction under chapter 135 shall provide the transportation or service on reasonable request. In addition, a motor carrier shall provide safe and adequate service, equipment, and facilities.

      49 U.S. Code section 14101

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    14. Re:Oh bullshit! by Pascoea · · Score: 1
      Have you never actually shipped a package? They may not open every package (or any package), but when you are tendering items for shipment you are agreeing to their terms and conditions, which expressly state what you are and are not allowed to ship.

      They all say something to the affect of "no illegal or dangerous items". FedEx is saying "Our lawyers haven't figured out if this CNC mill that is marketed with the express purpose of manufacturing weapons is legal or not, so we aren't going to ship it." What's the problem? They are a private company that has a published set of terms and conditions.

    15. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's called Operation Choke Point

    16. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the AC and his ilk, some of the world's dumbest liberals, are happy that a company providing a public accomadation is refusing service to someone based on a fictitious belief. Never mind their previous arguments that anyone providing a service to the public wasn't free to choose who they served or what kinds of photographs/cakes/etc they produced.

    17. Re:Oh bullshit! by Jiro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't seem to understand libertarianism. Libertarians believe that private actions should be legal. Libertarians do not believe that you should not complain about private actions.

      Furthermore, in this case, if FedEx really is afraid of legal liability, or if the government is in other ways putting pressure on them, it's not a private action anyway. Government involvement is inherently not private.

    18. Re:Oh bullshit! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      UPS recently paid $40 million dollars because they shipped fake drugs.

      They didn't ship fake drugs. They shipped real drugs: prescription drugs from Canada.

      Like they were supposed to open all the packages and verify the contents?

      They didn't need to open the packages. They already knew what was in them.

      If the government did not stop this activity, our health would have been at risk of deteriorating to Canadian levels.

    19. Re:Oh bullshit! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Change "guns" to flowers and Customer type from "gun loving" to Gay and see if you have a change it attitude.

      FedEx refused to ship flowers to a gay man

      You see, there is NOTHING "immoral" or "illegal" about either flowers, gunsmithing equipment, being a gun lover or lover of men. In fact, there is nothing different here except POPULAR OPINION.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    20. Re:Oh bullshit! by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've heard of similar things. For example, this guy sending air, water, and sugar.

      As long as you have the right safety labels, there shouldn't be a problem. The guy in the above link screwed up with the "Rocket Fuel" label.

      If they were sending a mill, why did they say "It's a machine for making guns"? IT could have been labeled as coming from "GG Machine Works", and if they needed a declaration of contents it's just "a CNC machine."

      I can't even think of the countless things I've shipped. Usually I'm only asked on International shipments for the customs declaration. If I explain what's in them, it's too complicated, so they just put "computer parts" or "tools".

      I've received some things that surprised people, like ammunition (legally marked and shipped as such, handled by UPS), a truck front axle, and all kinds of weird smaller things.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    21. Re:Oh bullshit! by fightinfilipino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Change "guns" to flowers and Customer type from "gun loving" to Gay and see if you have a change it attitude.

      FedEx refused to ship flowers to a gay man

      You see, there is NOTHING "immoral" or "illegal" about either flowers, gunsmithing equipment, being a gun lover or lover of men. In fact, there is nothing different here except POPULAR OPINION.

      except you're adding unnecessarily to the hypothetical

      "FedEx refuses to ship flowers." is DRASTICALLY different than "FedEx refuses to ship flowers to Alpha because of who Alpha is."

      FedEx is refusing to ship a specific product, not refusing to deliver products to people because of their identity. The situations are entirely different.

    22. Re:Oh bullshit! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This is nothing but targeted discrimination. where is the ACLU???

      The ACLU doesn't believe in the right to bear arms. It's the American Civil Liberties Except-for-Firearms Union, but ACLEFU just doesn't flow

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    23. Re:Oh bullshit! by GrahamCox · · Score: 1, Troll

      Goodness knows why this has been modded up as insightful. There is no analogy between guns and flowers, and FedEx are not concerned with the identity of the recipient, so adding in the false conflation of "gay man" and "gun loving" is your invention. I fully applaud FedEx's stance - the one thing the USA does not need any more of is guns. Besides, Cody Wilson is a grade-A twat.

    24. Re:Oh bullshit! by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      What is amusing about this is that US laws are so complicated and unclear with all sorts of corrupt provisos that not even lawyers can probably answer that question.

      Who knows what weird law they will hit them with? The government can more or less do whatever they want including things extra-judicial.

      But I am glad you have us covered with your decade of research...

      BTW: This is the system working as "intended".

    25. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      soon, only criminals will have carbide toolbits.

    26. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is just like Amazon dropping the Wikileaks account : consolidate power of gov --> tyranny

    27. Re: Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anybody had enough of things getting regulated or hated on because of what people call them? Call something an attack tool and everybody goes bananas. Call it a "security auditing tool" and it's magically ok (especially if it costs way too much). This is the same thing.

      Oh, yeah: unabashed liberal here and FedEx can go to hell over this one because trampling on ANY freedom is bad. This is exactly why we should never have a private-only delivery and mail system in the US as well.

    28. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except the purpose of buying flowers isn't to murder your family.

    29. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Corporations don't operate without the consent of the government.

      Funny, I thought the opposite was true.

    30. Re:Oh bullshit! by DaHat · · Score: 1

      They are a private company that has a published set of terms and conditions.

      Can a baker, florist or photographer put forth a set of terms and conditions with regards to what kind of events they will provide services for?

      The courts have been saying no for a while now in the case of some events they may disagree with: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/....
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

      It is an interesting world where some people/companies are compelled to provide services equally (if they want to remain in business), while others are given a pass.

      I'm still waiting for a case like this to happen in the US as it would be rather entertaining viewing: http://www.nationalreview.com/...

    31. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations don't operate without the consent of the government.

      Funny, I thought the opposite was true.

      Of course you did. That's by design.

    32. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it seems like big corporations control everything, it's because the government likes it that way, because ultimately the government controls them.

      If it seems like big corporations control everything, it's because Democrats like it that way, because ultimately the Obama regime controls them.
      Fixed that for ya.

    33. Re:Oh bullshit! by laurencetux · · Score: 2

      well then i suppose Hemlock Belladonna Fox Glove and Monkshood are not flowers then

    34. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "soon, only criminals will have carbide toolbits."

      I also never understood, why the mob uses accountants, lawyers and whatnot but seem unable to employ a gunsmith to build them untraceable guns. They start full banks for fuck's sake.

      If I was a mobster, I'd start with the gunsmith and worry about the accountant later.

    35. Re:Oh bullshit! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      UPS recently paid $40 million dollars because they shipped fake drugs.

      They didn't ship fake drugs. They shipped real drugs: prescription drugs from Canada.

      Like they were supposed to open all the packages and verify the contents?

      They didn't need to open the packages. They already knew what was in them.

      If the government did not stop this activity, our health would have been at risk of deteriorating to Canadian levels.

      No, our health costs were at risk of deteriorating to Canadian levels.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    36. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ouch. But you're still at 2. I resist downmodding you.

      This is a warning downmod.

    37. Re:Oh bullshit! by Zordak · · Score: 1

      In other words, the ACLU does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms. What was your point?

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    38. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Neo-Cons posing as Libertarians don't understand Libertarianism. The rest of us actually do.

      As for the right to complain, yes, we embrace it, but in addition his points seem salient to me. If the actions of FedEx are truly motivated by fear of governmental retribution then we should fix the government. If instead, FedEx is simply stating that they are feeling anti-gun today, we can both complain about their private actions (e.g. boycott their service) and consider introducing laws to further protect our civil liberties.

      The current (and I would argue just) rule is that if you offer a service like wedding cakes to a hetero couple, you must offer it to gay couples as well. If you offer to ship machinery that's useless for making guns, then you should offer it for machines useful for making guns.

    39. Re: Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can a baker, florist or photographer put forth a set of terms and conditions with regards to what kind of events they will provide services for?

      Yes, provided these terms and conditions comply with the law. For example, I know somebody who won't photograph where there is recreational alcohol consumption. No law requires that.

    40. Re: Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations are people, my friend.

    41. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can a baker, florist or photographer put forth a set of terms and conditions with regards to what kind of events they will provide services for?

      Yes. A baker can say they will not sell white cakes. They cannot say they will not sell to white people, black people, gay couples, interracial couples, or religious idiots who think their sky-daddy will be sad if the gays are allowed to get married.

      I do hope a case like that reaches the US. Idiotic beliefs in non-existent gods should be slapped down.

    42. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this is NOT a government involvement. This is a private corporation making a decision to avoid a behavior that might be regulated FOR GOOD REASON. Only a fucking idiot libertarian would think that there should be no government regulations. That same fucking idiot libertarian would probably be anti-FedEx for making their own decision to take precaution. If you want a DIY gun making machine, build it your goddamn self.

    43. Re:Oh bullshit! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      How do professional gunsmiths get their tools if no one will ship them? Is Fed Ex refusing to deliver only this specific gunsmithing tool because the intended users are amateur gunsmiths?

    44. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are just covering their asses.

      I don't know about you, but I prefer that the Fedex guy arrives with his pants on.

    45. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you need a gun you can pick up your own gay flowers.

    46. Re:Oh bullshit! by naff89 · · Score: 1

      Except people don't regularly die from supermarket flowers? If a child picks up a flower (or even, dare I say, a whole bouquet of them), there's an extremely small chance that they'll accidentally kill themselves.

      Quick Google search shows 1337 children under 18 died from gunshot wounds in 2010, with over 7000 more hospitalized.

      And while you may like the comparison for political reason, gay people are discriminated against because who they are doesn't match up with 1st-century morals. Gun lovers are discriminated against because they lobby against laws that could make those numbers drop down to match the rest of the civilized world's.

    47. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite correct.
      The Federal Laws determine what Federal Express can and cannot carry.
      A common carrier has to ship everything permitted by law.
      For example, FedEx has to ship guns for private individuals. (There is a specific process and standard for shipping but it is something done daily with common carriers like FedEx, UPS, etc.)
      Unless the Federal Government changes the law, FedEx will have to ship these legal manufacturing devices.

      Right now, the manufacturer has a great amount of free/low cost publicity about this 20% milling device. He will sell a lot more because of this publicity.

    48. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet Cody Wilson and his ilk, some of the world's biggest libertarians, are upset that a private company like FedEx refuses to carry their packages? Yawn.

      Nothing economic is private anymore. Hasn't been since WWII.

    49. Re:Oh bullshit! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Probably reliability and accuracy. Its likely easier to either alter tracable identifyers, destroy the weapon, or sell it tp some thug to take the heat and buy/steal new guns than to master reliability and accuracy and put it into production undetected.

    50. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick Google search shows 1500 children under 18 died from poisoning every year, with over 100,000 more hospitalized.

      Flowers are dangerous. I know two people who nearly died from exposure to or ingestion of flowers.

    51. Re: Oh bullshit! by anagama · · Score: 1

      You mean Democrats, the New GOP, right? A more pro-war, pro-surveillance, pro-wall-street group of assholes could only be found ... nowhere. The difference between the Old GOP and the New GOP can be summed up in total over the issues of abortion and gay marriage. Other than that, the two groups are entirely fungible.

      Seriously, Democrats today are to the right of Nixon and do everything he loved to do (war and surveil) and one thing he couldn't do (Nixon Care, conveniently relabeled Obama Care).

      So get over yourself -- you're just a blue team neo-con no better than a red team neo-con.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    52. Re:Oh bullshit! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      yeah, you pretty much proved my point... the ACLU does not care about the 2nd

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    53. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this is NOT a government involvement. This is a private corporation making a decision to avoid a behavior that might be regulated

      Wow. Just, wow.

      Only a fucking idiot libertarian

      Oh... you used a derogatory obscenity! Well, that puts your argument in an entirely different light. Clearly anyone who calls those he disagrees with "fucking idiots" is brilliant and deeply insightful. And such artistic command of the English language... I am not worthy. Maybe someday I can learn to say "fucking", too.

    54. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current (and I would argue just) rule is that if you offer a service like celebration cakes for a teenage boy's circumcision, you must offer it for a teenage girl's circumcision as well.

    55. Re:Oh bullshit! by khallow · · Score: 1

      What advantage do they get from having a lot of untraceable guns lying around? They never killed that many people at a time. It just seems a liability.

    56. Re:Oh bullshit! by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      They are not covering their asses, they are actively participating in gun control by exercising their right to refuse service to further their own (owners/shareholders/CEO) personal political views.

      There are no laws that would restrict shipment of this equipment, and it is stupid of them to make that claim, and must be assuming people are stupid enough to believe that excuse. There are also no laws making it illegal to manufacturer your own firearm (so long as your legally allowed to own one otherwise). If this were really what they say it is, then they should also stop all shipment of milling machines, CNC's, Lathes, and other metal working equipment, which they aren't doing. By not stopping the shipment of all equipment in that category, they have shown their hand that this is only about their viewpoint on guns in general, since this machine is marketed as a gun manufacturing device, rather than a general metal working device, even though the functions of it are the same as a CNC.

      It sounds similar to 'operation chokepoint' but on the shipping/carrier side rather than the banks and credit companies.

    57. Re:Oh bullshit! by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      there is nothing different here except POPULAR OPINION

      Actually despite many corporations anti-gun views, and the media and governemnt's anti-gun views, the actual "Popular Opinion" on guns is either slanted Pro, or at the very least, neutral. It's just the groups with the loudest mouths and most money and power that are the majority of 'anti-' gun, so it only seems that it is the popular opinion.

    58. Re:Oh bullshit! by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      the purpose of buying flowers can't SAVE your family either. Always two sides to a coin, and anti-gun liberals always like to point out murders with guns, but never mention the lives saved because of guns... the truth must be hard to swallow.

    59. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no laws that would restrict shipment of this equipment, and it is stupid of them to make that claim, and must be assuming people are stupid enough to believe that excuse.

      100% WRONG.

      The packaging/labeling/marketing of a product are all components of what constitute "Intended Use" of the item. If I sell you an item billed as, advertised as, and for all purposes marketed as being specifically for making a firearm, then it's not "just a CNC milling machine". It's specifically a component of firearm manufacturing, and very well may have additional regulations that the same exact machine would not have, were it simply billed as a generic CNC milling machine.

      If you ship baking soda in a box, along with a bottle of vinegar, labeled "Cooking supplies" that's perfectly ok. If you label it as a "ready to mix low-power explosive chemical" there's suddenly a huge string of regulations to ship it, and in many cases it suddenly becomes illegal to ship.

      Yes, Fedex is covering ass here... but these guys should not have marketed the CNC as a fucking gun manufacturing device.

    60. Re:Oh bullshit! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Marketing. A lot of people really like guns - selling your product as a gun-making machine can lead to increased sales, and allow you to charge a higher price.

    61. Re:Oh bullshit! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      There's a list of legally prohibited grounds for discrimination. It varies according to state law, but usually includes some combination of race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation.

    62. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see, there is NOTHING "immoral" or "illegal" about either flowers, gunsmithing equipment,

      It's illegal to own some flowers (certain Poppies, for example), and some gunsmithing equipment IS in fact regulated. I'll ignore the bit about Gays because it's ridiculous to put this in the same context, and simply detracts from discussion.

      The problem isn't shipping a CNC mill, or even shipping one made by a supplier of gunsmithing equipment. The problem is how they have it marketed, advertised, and billed. And it's highly unlikely they just up and made this decision themselves, more than likely the ATF and Justice Department made some phonecalls, and "suggested" that there might be some legal gray area here. Fedex then went into full ass-covering mode and said "fuck it, ship through someone else, we don't want to be caught in the middle of a pissing match between the Feds and a bunch of heavily armed gun activists."

    63. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet they object to personal ownership of nuclear weapons, cluster bombs and nerve gas.

      Should they become ACLEFNWCBNGU?

      Firearms are different, of course - at least as far as the US is concerned. A lot of otherwise similar places in the world look at US gun attitude and say "hey, those guys will have amazing numbers of firearms deaths ... hope they enjoy grieving!".

      Still, it's cool that those well organized militias can take on the government's military face to face. Incredible, in fact!

    64. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "soon, only criminals will have carbide toolbits."

      I also never understood, why the mob uses accountants, lawyers and whatnot but seem unable to employ a gunsmith to build them untraceable guns. They start full banks for fuck's sake.

      If I was a mobster, I'd start with the gunsmith and worry about the accountant later.

      Weapons which are custom-made or only fill small batches tend to leave 'fingerprints'. This allows those weapons to be traced indirectly, often back to the maker if he/she is around for any real length of time.
      Besides, why go through all that time and expense and risk, when you can just steal guns instead?

    65. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They download them!

    66. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And? Why is this bad? Everyone loves cake- even if it's a lie.

    67. Re: Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      saved from guns by guns

      now if only guns were not in the equation

      you wouldn't need to save anyone from guns

    68. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      18 USC Chapter 44

      YOU go read it.
      It clearly defines what activity falls under manufacturing and commerce and what does not (personal arms etc)

      quit being a lazy ass

    69. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "our" health, do you mean everyone's health or just the health of some people who can afford premium services? If you are suggesting that the health of people who can afford premium services will decline, consider that in a single-payer health care system the wealthy still have the option to pay extra for extra services. I know many people in Canada, and have family there. They love their health care system. And the ones who have relied on it for major issues now love it even more.

    70. Re:Oh bullshit! by Megol · · Score: 1

      NB that he didn't connect every libertarian with the belief "that there should be no government regulations" - only the fucking idiot variety. IMHO that's true - only a fucking idiot can't learn from history that no regulation will not lead to a libertarian paradise, it will lead to anarchy and oppression.

    71. Re:Oh bullshit! by buck-yar · · Score: 1

      My gut tells me you are making this up out of thin air.

      Citations please.

    72. Re: Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Threats to life do not only come from firearms. A 5' 110# female can be just as killed by the 6'5" 330# male with no weapons at all.

      Yet one of the only ways that a 5' 110# female can equal the threat level posed in such a situation is with a firearm.

      A firearm is a threat multiplier, a tool, that is all. Many times, just the site of a firearm will instantly defuse a threatening situation.

      Firearms are not inherently evil.
      Disarming the law abiding does not disarm the criminal. Never has, never will. All it does is turn the law abiding into helpless victims.

      As previously mentioned, this is Operation Choke Point. Back door gun control.

    73. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are just covering their asses.

      Oh bullshit on you! This is because Fedex management is anti-second amendment. They are covering no asses as there are no asses to be covered. They have a team of lawyers that have told them that. They think you should be totally disarmed and at the mercy of every thug out there. Bullshit on you!

    74. Re:Oh bullshit! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      why are you so intent on being a victim? this victimhood attitude, the automatics assumption that they must be out to get you, that its intentional discrimination, really does show a lack of character on your part. Stand up for yourself.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    75. Re:Oh bullshit! by dywolf · · Score: 0

      Bro do you even logic?
      just because they don't agree with your interpretation and interpret it differently doesn't mean they don't care about it.
      that's like Baptists telling Catholics they're heretics and don't worship the same god cause they interpret the Bible differently.

      or like saying that because they interpret the 1st amendment differently than you do, or the way Alabama's Chief Justice Moore does, (religion for all, not just religion for Christians), they don't care about it.

      this is your fundamental failure. you assume disagreement means polar opposite, that there are only two choices or possibilities of stance, when that's nowhere close to a truism. reality is far more complicated. but then we've pointed out your lack of logical capability before and you apparently have made no efforts to improve your comprehension skills.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    76. Re: Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I did read it. Nothing about firearms manufacturing equipment in there.
      Perhaps you should be more specific?
      Like link to a page, rather than blabbing uac bah bah bah

    77. Re:Oh bullshit! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      In other words, the ACLU does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms. What was your point?

      His point was that the ACLU held the same view on the right to bear arms as the US judiciary had for the last 70 years, namely that it was a collective right, referring to organised State militias.

      Just because you interpret the 2nd Amendment as meaning that individuals have an absolute right to carry firearms at all times does not mean that it is the actual truth.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    78. Re: Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations are people, my friend.

      Does that mean Soylent Green is Corporations?

    79. Re: Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, you are ignorant. The supreme court has ruled on the second amendment, verifying a citizens right to keep and bear arms. You fail to see that the ACLU does not stand up for those confirmed rights because of their own belief system.

    80. Re:Oh bullshit! by everett · · Score: 1

      companies don't have rights, only people do.

      --
      Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
    81. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL...nice joke there at the end.

      For those who need it to be more explicit, if the government didn't stop this activity then the pharmaceutical companies' monopoly in the US would be endangered. Where you or your insurance company are forced to pay 18 dollars for a pill that you can get for 75 cents in Canada? yeah, those profits would be endangered. It has absolutely ZERO to do with health.

    82. Re:Oh bullshit! by ameoba · · Score: 1

      The NRA has over twice the budget of the ACLU and has Second Amendment issues covered.

      Complaining about their lack of activity on gun rights is just a cheap way to discredit the organization because you have other issues with them.

      --
      my sig's at the bottom of the page.
    83. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the weed seed industry has no problems shipping anything and I know many people who have used all 3 services to ship fully mature and cured weed without any issues. So no, if an item is properly hidden and secured in a package, they have no fucking clue what they are shipping. They ship millions upon millions of illegal substances every single day. Those who are caught are a small fraction of the actual traffic.

    84. Re:Oh bullshit! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I expect there may be a little more to this. I think FedEx and Defense Distributed was trying to come up with some contract. And because the long term legality of such actions were questionable, FedEx probably didn't want to commit to such a contract, and probably just refused so if something did happen, they would be on record of being on the same page.
      I don't see this as a political statement from FedEx, but just making sure they don't get caught in the middle of something hard to get out of.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    85. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are flowers regulated in any way in your half witted example?

    86. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and that explains the high level of transparency in .gov actions...

    87. Re:Oh bullshit! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      companies don't have rights, only people do.

      Would be nice.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    88. Re:Oh bullshit! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      We're not talking guns here, we're talking about CNC mills, which haven't killed anyone. Next objection?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    89. Re:Oh bullshit! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Anti Gun is POPULAR, maybe just not as Popular as Pro Gun.

      Your argument is that the Cowboys are more popular than the Patriots, therefore the Patriots aren't popular at all.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    90. Re:Oh bullshit! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      No, but neither are CNC mills regulated ;) That is what we're talking about.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    91. Re:Oh bullshit! by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      Yes, no doubt, there can be popularity about more than 1 thing at the same time. However, the term "Popular Opinion" is usually referred to in this context that it is also the majority opinion, as in the other side is the minority opinion holder. I was simply stating the fact, that despite nightly news coverage and political talk against guns and gun ownership by politicians and other individuals, that it may seem that gun control is the "Majority Opinion", but it is not, and *most* public opinion polls show that pro-gun rights is actually the majority opinion.

      Hope that clarifies what I was saying.

    92. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His point was that the ACLU held the same view on the right to bear arms as the US judiciary had for the last 70 years, namely that it was a collective right, referring to organised State militias.

      Just because you interpret the 2nd Amendment as meaning that individuals have an absolute right to carry firearms at all times does not mean that it is the actual truth.

      There are no absolute rights, but the historical evidence regarding individual gun ownership in colonial America is both quite clear and abundant. This information has always been available to the US judiciary, for those that bother to look for it. That the judges failed to do so in a number of cases (leading some to believe that only the military has a right to bear arms) is a clear violation of the oaths they swore to uphold the Bill of Rights. It's also unethical practice of law, since creating a contradiction (or even just an apparent contradiction) in the legal system is ALWAYS unethical practice of law. It is hard to create a more explicit contradiction than that which exists between the text "may not be infringed" and the existence of a great many infringements.

      Note that a right of the people can reasonably exclude groups small enough to not be a significant portion of the people, such as criminals and the mentally ill, assuming we have reasonable definitions of what we mean by those terms, and the limitations imposed are themselves reasonable. This gets to the idea that no rights are absolute, but we still have many contradictions in the legal system with respect to the 2nd Amendment, for situations that go beyond the minimum and reasonable.

      Legal professionals are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to anything they do that makes the legal system harder for ordinary people to understand, since this creates an artificial demand for their services. This gives the Bar Associations a vested interest in influencing (we can presume that both legal and other means are used) the selection of judges that will do just that. Certainly the history of US law over the past 60-70 years does not give one great faith in the selection of judges willing to take a stand on ethical practice of law. The unwise policies (unwise from an ethics perspective) that have been adopted in many jurisdictions with respect to the 2nd Amendment can be presumed to be a result of this ethical conflict of interest. Attacks on the 2nd Amendment make other unethical policies (laws, orders, precedents, etc) that much easier to implement, in a domino fashion.

      As the right to ethical practice of law can be asserted under the 9th Amendment, these decisions represent yet another violation of the oaths sworn to uphold the Bill of Rights. These violations are individual: just as the Nuremberg Precedent (applicable to US law under the 9th Amendment) applies to military officers following orders from their superiors, so to does it apply to the legal hierarchy and profession.

      Irregardless of where one stands on the issue of personal ownership of firearms, everybody should see the sense of not supporting or encouraging unethical practice of law. Much current firearms related legislation and policy (federal, state, and local) is in fact illegal, and could only be made consistent with the right to ethical practice of law by means of a new Amendment.

    93. Re: Oh bullshit! by lucien86 · · Score: 2

      Maybe we could build a Terminator and like send it back in time to save America.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    94. Re:Oh bullshit! by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      I think the point is that gunsmithing equipment can be used to make guns. If those guns then have no identity or ID stamps then I'm pretty sure they would be illegal. Those guns could be used to commit crimes. Maybe worse if the person doesn't make the guns right there is a good chance someone is going to fire one and blow their face off.
      Mostly flowers don't blow faces off or kill people, and are absolutely useless for holding up a store or robbing a bank.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    95. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. They have common carrier protection. A side effect of that protection is that they must operate as a common carrier; this means not refusing to carry lawful freight except under tightly specified circumstances (dangerous goods, and so forth).

    96. Re:Oh bullshit! by vjg · · Score: 1

      Ummm... "costs"

    97. Re:Oh bullshit! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      While ACLU doesn't defend 2A by itself, they often get involved in 2A cases where there is some other aspect involving discrimination or privacy (like e.g. various "shall-issue" states refusing permits to non-citizens). Though I don't think this case qualifies...

    98. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that, and I know that, but if Cody Wilson doesn't accept that, then that argument cannot be made.

      Note, I do not know what Cody Wilson's feelings are regarding the "rights" of corporations.

    99. Re: Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FedEx can go to hell over this one because trampling on ANY freedom is bad.

      Then that must mean that trampling on the freedom of FedEx's overlords to decide what they will and will not ship is bad?

    100. Re: Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't companies have rights? My little company competes against multi-billion dollar public companies. You don't believe my little company should have rights?

    101. Re: Oh bullshit! by Muntzsky · · Score: 1

      You had me right up until "irregardless"...

    102. Re: Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In USSR (old times) they banned those subversive fax machines. Before that, someone tried to ban mimeographs. All in the name of the collective.

    103. Re:Oh bullshit! by hucker75 · · Score: 1

      Or showing common sense. Stupid Americans shooting each other, and now providing the ability to make your own weapons? Please guys, get into the 21st century and grow up. Stop using guns!

    104. Re:Oh bullshit! by olivercromwell · · Score: 1

      Sorry, fella, but our health care costs ain't at all cheap. They are just masked from the individual because of our system. Practitioners and unions as well as regional health management are constantly complaining of funding shortfalls even as the budget for health care increases, and then other public services suffer, or taxes go up. DO NOT BELIEVE THE BULLSHIT that our system is either better, or less expensive. neither of those thins is even remotely true.

    105. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I explain what's in them, it's too complicated, so they just put "computer parts" or "tools".

      i'm a former FedEx minion, and when you declare the contents of a shipment at a staffed counter we had to choose from a list of options. we could never type in your description - verbatim or otherwise - if we wanted, whether or not you think it's "too complicated."
      i could type whatever i wanted in hopes of finding a match in the list, but if it wasn't a word-for-word match it wouldn't continue with the process. "Computer Parts" is the closest for a lot of things, as are "Sporting Equipment" "Musical Instruments" or "Medical Equipment"... yet in training they insisted we be as specific as possible, and even threaten the origin station with the cost of the claims if items are delayed in customs due to incomplete commodity descriptions.

      fun times...

    106. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      possibly? firearms shipments require that at least one party be an FFL. shipping individual parts of guns - even in separate shipments - that could be assembled to form a working firearm is the same as shipping a complete firearm.
      a prudent counter agent might be worried that a gunsmithing tool (however else it might be used) could fall under the purview of firearms parts. he or she is well aware who is most likely to get thrown under the bus for accepting Dangerous Goods...

      this isn't new... same thing happened when eCigs first hit the market. sale of tobacco is regulated by the state, and FedEx doesn't ship that. these items are similar enough in function that the Ops folks simply waited for the Legal department to sort it out.

      source: me, a former FedEx minion, who specifically asked the shipping Service Assurance Coordinators about this when a customer tried to ship a gun in parts thinking they could get around the law. keep in mind, i did not REFUSE the shipment outright, but said that it seemed to fall into a grey area and would have to defer to the decision of my managers.

    107. Re:Oh bullshit! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I actually am a fan of the ACLU even if i dont always agree with the cases they tend to pick up....

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    108. Re:Oh bullshit! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Sorry, fella, but our health care costs ain't at all cheap. They are just masked from the individual because of our system. Practitioners and unions as well as regional health management are constantly complaining of funding shortfalls even as the budget for health care increases, and then other public services suffer, or taxes go up. DO NOT BELIEVE THE BULLSHIT that our system is either better, or less expensive. neither of those thins is even remotely true.

      But in this instance, we're talking about mail order pharmaceuticals, which are often much cheaper in Canada than the US.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    109. Re: Oh bullshit! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      No, actually I'm well aware of the 2nd Amendment, its court history, and the ACLUs stance, unlike you. Note that it took until 2008 for the SCOTUS to rule as it did, and that decision was contrary to existing precedent, and required the most ideological conservative court since the Hughes Court that battled FDR every step of the way through the New Deal.

      The ACLUs position is here: https://www.aclu.org/racial-ju...

      It states:

      Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

      In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.

      Note that it doesnt say "there is no right to bear arms", nor does it say "we opposed the 2nd amendment". Ergo, the ACLU doesn't oppose the 2nd Amendment. They just disagree with your chosen interpretation of it, which is not the same thing.

      Which is what I said the first time.

      So the ignorant one is you, and apparently you are incapable of logic as well.
      And you also apparently dont know what flamebait is, as I must assume you are the cowardly mod (or even a sock pupper for ganjadude) who decided logic and reasoning were "flamebait" because you didnt like them.

      (also i find it amusing that you assume I even agree them, rather than am simply pointing out and correcting your ignorance of the topic and your faulty logic)

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    110. Re: Oh bullshit! by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Also note that the ACLU in fact DOES and HAS stood up for the 2nd Amendment, which is also alluded to in their position paper.

      So while they believe it to be a group or societal right rather than an individual one, they also oppose efforts to create gun owners registry. And they have worked with the NRA to prevent such a registry from being created. And they've fought cases where police have used the presence of a gun to wrongly establish probable cause in violation of the 4th Amendment.

      So there. You're slightly less stupid now.

      (example case: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04...)

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    111. Re:Oh bullshit! by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      All comes down to if they knew or could have known. When John Dowe at 123 Main St is reported as running a meth lab then I think it is reasonable to deny shipping packages from that person or even address. In this case I applaud FedEx, there are already too many guns around that cause too many people to commit too many crimes. No need to be an enabler of making more of this.

    112. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When to they ban the drill press?

    113. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If you offer to ship machinery that's useless for making guns, then you should offer it for machines useful for making guns.

      The way you worded it, your sentence is equivalent to: If you offer to ship non-radiocative material, you should offer it for radioactive material too.

      How does that make any sense...?

    114. Re:Oh bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sorry dont you mean ,at risk of improving to Canadian levels.

    115. Re:Oh bullshit! by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Yup. Sarcasm mode was enabled during that post.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  2. "Electronic Unicorn Fabricator" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay guys, plan B: Print up all new boxes that say "Electronic Unicorn Fabricator". Then we'll start printing FedEx stickers.

    1. Re:"Electronic Unicorn Fabricator" by luther349 · · Score: 1

      or label it what it really is a cnc mill

  3. UPS - No Problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hand tools can make firearms,
    household cleaners can make explosives,
    a sponge can be used to choke someone to death...

    You can not regulate possible future events,
    you can not outlaw human free will.

    1. Re:UPS - No Problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, well, well, look at Al-Qaeda Jones here, with his pressure cooker and encryption software. What are you hiding, possible terrorist?

    2. Re:UPS - No Problem. by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There are parallels that can be drawn to how devices capable of home recording were viewed when they were new.

      The manufacturer has chosen to market this device specifically for the production of firearms. They do not appear to have marketed this as a general-purpose device. It's reasonable to expect that purchased units will be used for the purposes of producing firearms. It doesn't really matter much that the device is capable of producing other goods, that's not how it's being sold.

      Mills, lathes, and other metalworking equipment sold as general-purpose machine-shop equipment don't have this problem because they're not being marketeted for this specific purpose.

      This contrasts well with the situation of home recording because devices capable of making recordings but intended to be general-purpose machines (ie, tuning for live watching, playback of commercial tapes, etc) were marketed differently than devices sold specifically for duplication or mass recording.

      FedEx is free to choose with whom they'll conduct business. If they feel they are taking-on risk by shipping these machines then they're free to not ship them, like how cutomers and businesses are free to use anyone else that will take them to do such shipping.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:UPS - No Problem. by MouseR · · Score: 1

      ^ said anonymous poster

    4. Re:UPS - No Problem. by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Yes. Someone posted a link on here a year or two ago concerning a shovel being repurposed into a repeating rifle... no great task in the grand scheme of things where the metallurgy craft and tools were present.

      This is an obvious attempt to market a piece of machinery with an advertised single purpose... even though that may not accurately reflect the product.

      Move along now... nothing here worth wadding up your undergarments.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:UPS - No Problem. by msauve · · Score: 2

      He's obviously part of that Anonymous group, and on the watch list.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:UPS - No Problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous posting really one shields you from other drones with excess mod points. Between the crackhead at your local ISP and his "contact" at the foreign customer service fraud factory, you may as well be posting your personal iformation on the bus station wall. Between browser and OS fingerprinting and IP geolocation, you might be unique to 1:10^5. And *THAT* reduces you to a s8ngle side of a single sheet of paper. The only thing that saves yo7 is that your pathetic life is of no interest to anyone but a 12 y/o script kiddie (or equivelent boring people like me).

    7. Re: UPS - No Problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point. That is why we need to limit access to tools. Of course the Republicans are against reasonable restrictions.

    8. Re:UPS - No Problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you said "household cleaners to make bombs" on the contents, they might not take it.

    9. Re:UPS - No Problem. by SixGunMojo · · Score: 1
    10. Re:UPS - No Problem. by turp182 · · Score: 1

      Smithsonian Magazine has an article in their current issue about copiers. The Soviet Union controlled access to copiers initially.

      I haven't read the article yet, but it sounds interesting (Smithsonian Magazine is a gem, the TV channel, a travesty):

      http://www.smithsonianmag.com/...

      The topic at hand is a history chorus, and it's rhyming...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    11. Re:UPS - No Problem. by sumdumass · · Score: 2

      Thats why i only post from stolen tablets on the free WIFI at various fast food places like McDonalds using VPN accounts purchased with stolen credit cards.

      Oh, and i also wear a tin foil hat- not to be confused wiyh the cheap aluminum foil hats.

    12. Re:UPS - No Problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were boring until that post.

      So, I can find you...

    13. Re:UPS - No Problem. by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Note that OUR government has it's nose in our copiers to this day to prevent copying anything exhibiting the Orion Constellation like most world currency. Check the backs of recent US currency - the pattern is there.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    14. Re:UPS - No Problem. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Hand tools can make firearms,
      household cleaners can make explosives,
      a sponge can be used to choke someone to death...

      You can not regulate possible future events,
      you can not outlaw human free will.

      Just because you can make a bomb out of fertiliser doesn't mean that you therefore might as well legalise the sale and possession of semtex.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    15. Re:UPS - No Problem. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      EURion constellation. I don't think astronomers have had any problems printing anything.

    16. Re:UPS - No Problem. by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Of course you're correct - duh on my part.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  4. political preference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have worked for fedex for 15 years. I assure you this is not a hippie liberal company.

    Corporations are naturally risk adverse. And it doesn't matter if it's a marketed mill... we can't ship a ball bearing certain places if you tell us it can be used on a tank. Regulations are what they are.

    1. Re:political preference? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      I have worked for fedex for 15 years. I assure you this is not a hippie liberal company.

      Corporations are naturally risk adverse. And it doesn't matter if it's a marketed mill... we can't ship a ball bearing certain places if you tell us it can be used on a tank. Regulations are what they are.

      AC tries using a ball bearing on a tank, it has no effect.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:political preference? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you say it is "X", FedEx has to treat it like "X". It you say it is not X, you (the liar) will bear the liability. So FedEx doesn't care. If you say it is "X" when it is "not X", why would FedEx risk it?

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:political preference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look, this guy isn't complaining because he can't ship what he wants, he's complaining because it's good business. More complains = more news coverage = more sales. Everyone here is making some good points, and the libertarian thing is kind of funny, but the more a story is made out of this, the more he wins. He's getting free advertising right here.

    4. Re:political preference? by luther349 · · Score: 1

      because someone labels a cnc mil a dyi gun maker they panic. but 2 issues both making your own gun and a cnc are not illagle.

    5. Re:political preference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if I take a ploughman's lunch (pickle, cheese and a cracker) and put it in a package called "Gun Maker's Lunch" or "Drug Lord's Lunch" then does it magically become illegal? I'm sure toilet paper is used by drug lords as well but that doesn't mean we have to forbid all transit for toilet paper.

      It seems that the mere suggestion that something could be used in a crime or by a criminal is enough to classify it as illegal. This just makes for a lot of unnecessary taboo. Then again, if someone is naming a product in some way then it alludes to the target market. FedEx can refuse to ship to people that might be criminals if they suspect a manner in which they're breaking the law. We also don't know if garden shed munitions manufacture is illegal since few people have access to the technology *and* training to do it, but it looks like we're slowing lowering that bar with better tools...so they also made the tools (maybe) illegal.

      Next: Relabeling household products with titles like "Bomb Maker's Floor Cleaner", or "Meth User's Bath Time Bubbles". Bonus points if there's no possible way they could be used for that purpose.

    6. Re:political preference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have worked for fedex for 15 years. I assure you this is not a hippie liberal company.

      Corporations are naturally risk adverse. And it doesn't matter if it's a marketed mill... we can't ship a ball bearing certain places if you tell us it can be used on a tank. Regulations are what they are.

      So how risk averse are they? Do they ship firearms? If yes, singly or by the crate as well?

    7. Re:political preference? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      AC tries using a ball bearing on a tank, it has no effect.

      you need a much bigger ball bearing to do mega damage. you could bounce that off the paint all day and not leave a scratch.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re: political preference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man you nuts love your terrible analogies...

    9. Re:political preference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, this guy is doing it wrong if he wrote anything other than "Gift" on the tag.

    10. Re:political preference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assure you this is not a hippie liberal company.

      No kidding, Fred Smith is not exactly a shining beacon of the left.

      As an anecdote, the Memphis airport and FedEx World Hub is bordered on the north by a street named Democrat Road. That road has been so named for many decades. Upon securing a long-term property lease at the airport for FedEx, one of Smith's first moves was to name the perpendicular roadway, leading into the hub, Republican Drive. (Some time later as the company grew more concerned about public image, a portion of Republican was christened Independent.)

      FedEx ain't trying to take your guns away. They just don't want any more trouble with regulations than they already have.

    11. Re:political preference? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      AC tries using a ball bearing on a tank, it has no effect.

      you need a much bigger ball bearing to do mega damage. you could bounce that off the paint all day and not leave a scratch.

      That depends on how fast it's moving.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    12. Re:political preference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it doesn't matter if it's a marketed mill... we can't ship a ball bearing certain places if you tell us it can be used on a tank. Regulations are what they are.

      There are no regulations on shipping machine tools, even if they are marketed as being for the manufacture of firearms. Neither shipping a firearm manufacturing tool nor even manufacturing a firearm are the slightest bit illegal. Comparing this to ITAR stuff is unwarranted.

    13. Re:political preference? by HiThereImBob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you say it is "X", FedEx has to treat it like "X". It you say it is not X, you (the liar) will bear the liability. So FedEx doesn't care. If you say it is "X" when it is "not X", why would FedEx risk it?

      It is "X". It is also "Y" and "Z" along with "L", "M", "N", "O", and "P". CNC Mills can be used to make damn near anything. I am officially notifying FEDEX that any CNC Mill can be used for gunsmithing. Also, Lab equipment / chemicals can be used for making drugs and bombs. Plane parts can be used to assemble planes a terrorist could use to crash into a building, and car parts can be used to facilitate both murder and drug smuggling. Camera and video equipment can be used by pedophiles, as can computers and networking gear (do I really need to keep going?). I expect them to step up and stop shipping these things at once.

    14. Re:political preference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you need more velocity rather than mass. You wanna see a cheap Chinese bearing come apart you get that thing up to 10-20kmph and you are gonna ruin somebody's day. Of course you don't want to get carried away and try this with neutrinos, because the guy you're shooting at will probably just pull your underwear over your head.

    15. Re:political preference? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine once got killed by a truck. He got better after a while, but still. I demand that FedEx stops using trucks at once!

    16. Re:political preference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, I'm not sure what a "ploughman" is. Second, if you tried to ship a ploughman's lunch by FedEx, they would not take it. They don't handle perishable foods.

    17. Re: political preference? by khallow · · Score: 1

      "Drug lord toilet paper" has an interesting ring to it.

    18. Re:political preference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My tank grew to 15 feet high, bellowing "BALL BEARING!! BALL BEARING!!!"

    19. Re: political preference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds shitty to me. Everyone knows Spaceballs: The Toilet Paper is the ONLY way to wipe one's ass!

    20. Re:political preference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A ploughman is a man who runs a plough. Ya know, to till dirt for farming. And you'd be wrong. I have had pickles, cheese, and crackers all shipped via UPS, FedEx, and USPS- though not at the same time. Mainly because I'm not a ploughman.

    21. Re:political preference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably a company as large as fedex would have a lawyer in it somewhere. *Any* lawyer would be able to tell you right quick that manufacturing equipment like that is unregulated. The restrictions are on shipping declared firearms (to make it overly simplistic, "the part with the trigger/firing mechanism". You can even ship new barrels and ammunition! Both of which are much closer to being a "firearm" than a mill. This is simple willful ignorance on the part of fedex.

    22. Re:political preference? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      *sigh*

      If you tried shipping a bunch of agricultural fertiliser and electronic timing products and wrote "bomb-making equipment" on the fucking shipping label, do you really suppose it would be allowed to pass without scrutiny?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    23. Re: political preference? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      "Drug lord toilet paper" has an interesting ring to it.

      Better: Shitlord toilet paper.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    24. Re: political preference? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      He also missed the obvious bath salts connection in the last line.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    25. Re:political preference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyhow, it sounds delicious. Am I allowed to have some even if I am not a ploughman? (I'm American so I guess I would be a plowman?)

    26. Re:political preference? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Whether it's a Gun Maker's lunch or not, it's still a lunch. If it's an item sold as "Thing for making guns" instead of "Thing for making things" that's where the difference comes in. Your example makes no sense.

    27. Re:political preference? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Bombs are in general not legal. Guns are.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. FedEx is a private business, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can't they refuse to ship anything on whatever grounds they want, or are they mandated to carry anything that they aren't banned from shipping?

    1. Re:FedEx is a private business, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Cody Wilson, self-avowed libertarian and near anarchist, is upset that a private company refuses to do business with him. News at 11.

    2. Re:FedEx is a private business, isn't it? by modecx · · Score: 1

      FedEx (non freight) is a common carrier. They actually do not have arbitrary authority to discriminate against what items they convey; hazardous, unreasonably heavy or bulky cargo, etc. not withstanding. If there is no law against the transport of some item, and it fits into their rate schedule and service area, they should be obligated to perform their service.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    3. Re:FedEx is a private business, isn't it? by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

      They should hire a gay, black, female employee and see if FedX is brave enough to not accept items for shipping from them. The threat of a triple hat lawsuit I think would breakdown their resistance.

    4. Re:FedEx is a private business, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Story says that isn't so. If Cody declared himself a gay man they would be in trouble for refusing to ship for him. But I'm guessing he is a white hetero male, so discrimination is ok in that case.

    5. Re:FedEx is a private business, isn't it? by Jiro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't seem to understand libertarianism. Libertarians believe that private actions should be legal. Libertarians do not believe that you should not complain about private actions.

      Furthermore, in this case, if FedEx really is afraid of legal liability, or if the government is in other ways putting pressure on them, it's not a private action anyway. Government involvement is inherently not private.

      But then I already said this.

    6. Re:FedEx is a private business, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FedEx (non freight) is a common carrier.

      You have that backwards. FedEx Freight, Inc. d/b/a FedEx Freight has common carrier status in the United States. FedEx, Inc. d/b/a FedEx does not.

    7. Re:FedEx is a private business, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      near anarchist

      You really have no idea who Cody Wilson is do you.

    8. Re:FedEx is a private business, isn't it? by modecx · · Score: 1

      You're right, I remember reading that FedEx Ground now operates as independent operator contractor / broker. Still, if a train / roller coaster at Disney qualifies as common carrier, I find it difficult to believe that service offered by FedEx Ground d/b/a/ FedEx (Green Ex, not Red Ex--that's some significant distinction) could reasonably escape common carrier status even though it sure as hell checks all of the other boxes.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    9. Re:FedEx is a private business, isn't it? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      All of fed ex that ships anything is required to have an ICC number and therefore a common carrier unless they registered as not for hire and only transport their own goods to their own points of market.

    10. Re:FedEx is a private business, isn't it? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Can't they refuse to ship anything on whatever grounds they want, or are they mandated to carry anything that they aren't banned from shipping?

      Put it this way, you can't force them to do business with you.

      If you ask them for a quote to deliver X and they decline, there is no contract, and nothing much you can do about it.

      It's why mainstream media aren't compelled to accept advertisments from (say) extreme racist or pro-paedophile groups.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:FedEx is a private business, isn't it? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If there is no law against the transport of some item

      And they are only refusing shipment because they think it might be against some law. So doesn't it fit your list?

    12. Re:FedEx is a private business, isn't it? by modecx · · Score: 1

      If they refused to ship things because any given random brown box might somehow be against some law somewhere, they wouldn't still be in business. On the other hand, this machine, and the activities endorsed by its creators are demonstrably not illegal.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    13. Re:FedEx is a private business, isn't it? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I'm sure FedEx consulted their lawyers and aren't making an arbitrary judgement call. Just look at what happened when they handled Canadian drug shipments as a common carrier. It sounds like they have 1.6 billion reasons to be extremely careful if you ask me.

  6. Shoot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shoot!

  7. So much for the 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Just how safe are rights such as gay marriage when ones explicitly protected by the US Constitution are ignored?

    Because the entire point of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure the government didn't outgun the population.

    For obvious fucking reasons.

    1. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by CaptainLard · · Score: 3

      ones explicitly protected by the US Constitution are ignored?

      You mean like how you're ignoring the First amendment? Assuming this actually is Fedex taking a political stance on your worst nightmare and not just risk aversion, where in the second amendment does if force private businesses to ship equipment designed for firearms manufacture?

      In a related story, rest easy with that 45 under your pillow because you've won the war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

      Now can we focus on real problems?

    2. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have no legal right to have FedEx ship your items for you, as far as I know.

      Is this somewhere in the Constitution, or some other law?

    3. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by meglon · · Score: 0

      Which "explicitly protected" rights have been ignored here? Please cite the exact phrase in the Constitution/Bill of Rights that mandates Fed-Ex ship his packages.

      As for your stupidity regarding the second amendment: the second amendment was adopted to ensure that members of the state militias had weapons should they be called up.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    4. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the way gun rights people shut down all debate on the topic it is clear you folks don't really value freedom as much as you value simply getting your way.

    5. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Rights do not exist, not in the Jeffersonian "inalienable" context. Not natural rights, or god given rights, etc.

      What the people may generally think of as Rights are just Privileges that are "assumed". Rights are whatever the masses 1) can be duped into thinking, or 2) have duped themselves into thinking; they are.

    6. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From the way gun rights people shut down all debate on the topic

      Citation please.

      I live in Washington state where last year I-594 passed, requiring universal background checks and even requires casually loaned a firearm to a friend or adult family member without going through background checks every time it changed hands a criminal act.

      Prior to the election there really wasn't much of a debate... but not because of the gun rights folks, it was because of the massive amount of money being poured in by groups like Bloomberg's, out side simply couldn't compete. But then having the media also taking sides early on helps with that as well.

      Even with the passage of I-594, one of the local stations now is living in terror of something that many have known about for a while, gun trusts: http://www.kirotv.com/news/new...

    7. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no legal right to have FedEx ship your items for you, as far as I know.

      Is this somewhere in the Constitution, or some other law?

      And yet there are Christians who are being prosecuted for refusing to do custom work for homosexuals who are getting married. Apparently, you DO have a legal right to force someone to decorate a cake or arrange flowers for you, at least if you're homosexual.

    8. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by ubrgeek · · Score: 2

      Yes, but the Amendment's delivery is delayed due to bad weather. FedEx apologizes for the inconvenience.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    9. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      As for your stupidity regarding the second amendment: the second amendment was adopted to ensure that members of the state militias had weapons should they be called up.

      As for your stupidity regarding the second amendment: it exists because the founders had just gone through a war where they found it convenient that the people had guns, and lived in a time when guns were a way of life and necessary for self-defense against not only criminals but wild beasts. They had just overthrown a repressive government and wanted to keep that option available for the new one they'd just fought to create, should it become necessary.

      The "militia" clause is an explanatory clause, not a complete statement of the entire reason why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Had they wanted to say that they could have easily done so. And that clause says nothing about state militias. It wasn't intended to because it was the federal constitution, not a state constitution.

    10. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Sowelu · · Score: 1

      You're close. You don't have a legal right to receive their service, but they do have a legal obligation to provide the service, because they are a common carrier. In exchange for legal considerations that the government grants them, they agree to certain terms of the government's...like "serve everyone".

      But yeah, they also have some severe restrictions on what they're not allowed to carry, and they err way on the side of caution. If you told them "this is a block of lead, and I plan to melt it for bullets", they may well refuse, and by some legal interpretations they might *have* to.

    11. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Common carrier status. FedX can be sued from here to next Friday for refusing to ship a legal item. It's called discrimination and that is quite illegal.

    12. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1, Troll

      Huh? Being Christian has pretty much nothing to do with it. If you are registered with the state to be the overseeing signatory on a marriage certificate and you refuse to do so for some non-governmental reason, and the state supports gay marriage, you're out of luck. You can definitely refuse to perform a ceremony for them (or anyone else), as wedding ceremonies are not a state function but a religious function. And if you make remarks indicating that you are refusing strictly because of their sexual orientation, you'll likely be in a lot of trouble. However, you can probably even refuse to officiate the signing of the certificate under religious grounds due to their sexual practices, if they've been having sex outside of marriage. You can easily refuse to do the ceremony, as gay marriage and *traditional* biblical marriage are similar, but not identical things (the OT Bible states one man and one woman, no matter how you translate it, even if significant portions of the OT population failed to meet the requirements on polygamy rules or cleanliness rules, among other things).

      So no -- homosexuality / christianity don't factor in here at all.

      What DOES factor in is that he's billing this item as something to make gun parts, and FedEx doesn't ship things intended primarily for the manufacture of weapons. If the advertizing said "CNC machine perfect for milling small parts such as metal straws, rifled barrels, triggers for mechanical devices and other small metal parts that need to withstand explosive force", FedEx probably wouldn't bat an eye shipping it. But that's not what he put on the shipping invoice.

      Kind of the same as the situation often found with Christian priests/pastors and gay marriage. It all depends on how you advertize.

    13. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      You might want to actually read the Federalists papers before you spew this nonsense. The writers are quite explicit in the reasoning and intent. The comment you made is one bandied about by those wanting to misrepresent the truth.

    14. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by unrtst · · Score: 2

      But yeah, they also have some severe restrictions on what they're not allowed to carry, and they err way on the side of caution. If you told them "this is a block of lead, and I plan to melt it for bullets", they may well refuse, and by some legal interpretations they might *have* to.

      http://www.fedex.com/us/freigh...

      Item 780, section B-6:
      Carrier will transport small-arms ammunition when packed and labeled in compliance with local, state and federal law, and the Hazardous Materials section of this Service Guide. Ammunition is an explosive and must be shipped separately as hazardous materials. You agree not to ship loaded firearms or firearms with ammunition in the same package.

      So I'm damn sure the implied use for the lead wouldn't keep it from being shipped. There may be other reasons, but nothing due to bullets.

      However, you can't ship:
      Money (and, apparently, anything like it)
      Alcohol
      Porn
      postage stamps
      letters, with or without stamps
      valuable paper of any kind
      fresh food
      Articles of extraordinary value (extraordinary value is defined as items valued in excess of $50 per pound per package).
      artwork
      film, photos, negatives, etc
      jewelry
      tobacco products (unless shipped from and to a licensed dealer/distributor)

      I found a few of those to be kinda surprising, but almost all of them tend to fall under some loose umbrella of "stuff you could use in place of money". The other excludes make sense in other ways... like "More than 100 pounds of NA3178, Smokeless Powder for small arms on any motor vehicle" and other "we don't want to blow up our drivers and the neighborhood around them" type stuff; or fresh food, where they probably just don't want rotting food attracting animals and bugs and generally being nasty.

      They also won't ship firearms, unless it is from and to a dealer/distributor. This is where I think the gunsmithing machine hits a grey area. I'm 99.9% sure there wouldn't have been any problem at all if they just said it was a CNC mill, which it is. If it can pop out a complete firearm upon arrival and being plugged in, then it's just like sending the firearm (it can't do that, but they don't know that, and it says it'll make guns).

    15. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by hambone142 · · Score: 2

      I ordered bulk .22 Cal. ammunition online. Federal Express shipped it to my rural address. It was in a box labeled "ORM-D" and had a label indicating "contains ammunition or small firearms". The left the box down by my road at my (closed) gate that they have instructions to open. OTOH, my stock broker sent me a "thank you" gift of some nice wine. That required "a signature of an adult over age 21 that is not under the influence of alcohol". I got a laugh out of both events.

    16. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by msauve · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not a right, but there is a legal requirement that FedEx ship the product.

      The US Congress, using its powers under the Commerce Clause, has created laws covering Interstate Commerce. Among those laws are ones defining motor carriers (49 U.S. Code section 13501), and requiring them to provide transportation "on reasonable request" (section 14101) according to tariffs which include the "rules, and practices" (section 13710). There is nothing in FedEx Ground's tariff which allow it to exclude the product in question, so they are legally required to ship it in accord with the published rates.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    17. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by queazocotal · · Score: 1

      Is the mill in question over $50/lb?

    18. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your package left New York on 2/1/2015
      Your package left California on 2/8/2015
      Your package left New York on 2/15/2015
      Your package left California on 2/22/2015
      Yoru package left...

    19. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Discrimination is entirely legal, it's only specific kinds of discrimination that are illegal.

      And FedEx's position seems to be "We need to have our lawyers look at this" which they can argue falls under seeking counsel to ensure their compliance with laws and regulations, and is itself a legal right.

    20. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, further laws can exist beyond those in the Constitution, in fact, the Constitution expressly authorizes the passage of many laws for various reasons.

      Same with State Constitutions, which is what the laws you're talking about fall under, or Municipal Charters. Which is why a certain state recently decided to try forbidding Municipalities from passing such anti-discrimination laws.

      But this was true well before it was homosexuals, back in the 1960s, hotels were being sued because they refused customers of certain races. (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States). So you're not talking anything new.

      If you want Congress to pass a law requiring carriers to ship things, you can write your legislators. Perhaps these laws do exist. Perhaps not. Same if you wish your religion to enjoy some protection while engaging in commerce. However, you should note, not everybody will necessarily agree with you, and may oppose you.

      Such is life.

    21. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by meglon · · Score: 1
      from the AC:

      Just how safe are rights such as gay marriage when ones explicitly protected by the US Constitution are ignored?

      Because the entire point of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure the government didn't outgun the population.

      For obvious fucking reasons.

      Note the word "explicitly" in his comment.

      my response:

      Which "explicitly protected" rights have been ignored here? Please cite the exact phrase in the Constitution/Bill of Rights that mandates Fed-Ex ship his packages.

      Thank you for pointing out that i am correct.

      As for the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, shipping something via Fed-Ex may, or may not, be covered under that (i would make the base assumption that a package sent strictly "fed-ex ground" probably is, but that gets into a lot of details that not only am i not privy too, but i imagine could change at any given time in the shipment of any given package); it may well be covered under the umbrella of domestic air carriage. Interestingly enough, those rules don't apply to domestic air carriage because of deregulation in the past 30-40 years (i personally find that to be humorously ironic in this specific situation).

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    22. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by unrtst · · Score: 1

      Is the mill in question over $50/lb?

      Hehhehheh... I was wondering too, and how many other things qualify for that... I'm guessing quite a few. Of the top of my head:
      * a pound of blue ray movies (or dvds, or cds, or vinyl)
      * any tablet (kindle fire, ipad, galaxy pad, etc)
      * any phone or ipod or wearable mp3 player
      * headphones
      * most laptops
      * most musical instruments
      * makeup/face creams/etc
      * all bra's and panties, and most other articles of clothing
      * bicycles that cost about $1000 or more (which is most decent ones)

      Surprisingly, more expensive stuff tends to be ok. For example, Samsung 55" 4k UHD LED TV = $1099 and weighs about 44lb; At 44lb, it'd have to cost over $2200 to hit $50/lb. Or their curved 65" 4k UHD, which is $2197... but it's 70lb! I tried a couple other categories, and that trend seems to hold somewhat well (ex. really good speakers end up weighing a lot more; cheap ones are too cheap to qualify; mid-range ones *may* qualify).

      FedEx should be denying most shipments!

    23. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are going to argue intent from the context of rich slave owning rapists who came within a hairs breath of being executed as traitors you are on shaky ground.
      Balance that against the fact that nowadays if enough poor, slave, immigrants get together, they can make gun ownership and global warming laws say whatever they want. That's the way it works.
      Just keep in mind that History has shown rich slave owners tend to kill people by the trainload sooner or later. Then we name ships after them and get paid holidays. Because after all, we are Americans, even if we're not. Still, this does not explain West Virginia. Then again, maybe it does. WHAT IT NEVER WILL EXPLAIN IS SYSTEMD.

    24. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've read them. They are too difficult (language and logic reasoning) for the general public to comprehend.

    25. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      I've had to ship high-end HD broadcast cameras through FedEx before, that easily would be on your list as well. These cameras were between $10,000 and $25,000 and were less than 50lbs each. While they said the shipping insurance only covers up to a certain amount, they didn't bat an eye about the actual shipment of those items.

    26. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      "...Shall not be infringed." is not debatable when it comes to gun rights, it says so right there in the Constitution. Starting a debate is pointless. Debates are how we got where we are now, clearly 'infringed' at this point.

    27. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No we can't. Surely you're in the computer world. Nothing is ever finished and everything always has to go past 11. So what that we're top? We have to be so far at the top that no one could ever think about reaching us, and when we get there, well then that number isn't good enough so we gotta kick it up a notch. So, again, no we cannot focus on real problems.

    28. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Just how safe are rights such as gay marriage when ones explicitly protected by the US Constitution are ignored?

      The 2nd amendment is not protected, as it has never been granted the umbrella of the 14th amendment (unlike the 1st amendment, which has been incorporated under the powers of the 14th amendment, for federal enforcement if necessary). Thus, a condo or even a village located in the USA cannot ban free speech, but it can ban firearms from its lot, no problems. That's because the SCOTUS has consistently refused to "fourteenize" the 2nd amendment so far.

      > Because the entire point of the 2nd Amendment was to make sure the government didn't outgun the population.

      Good luck with that! There are those little guvmint toys called Abrams, Warthog, AC-130, Apache, B-52, not to mention the B-61 device, which turns clouds into mushrooms and people into wall silhouettes...

    29. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by msauve · · Score: 1

      You are, of course, correct not in any general sense. But feel free to enjoy your tiny semantic, pedantic victory. There are different forms of rights. There are natural ones, such as the right to self-defense embodied in the 2nd Amendment, and there are legally created ones, such as the right to ship products via motor carrier or the rights created by a contract.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    30. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      In a related story, rest easy with that 45 under your pillow because you've won the war

      But I have two pillows -- when is FedEx going to deliver my other 45?

      and "focus on real problems"? What?? -- do you have ANY idea how uncomfortable it is to sleep on uneven pillows?

      -----

      Gun control is being able to hit your target.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    31. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      But I have two pillows -- when is FedEx going to deliver my other 45?

      and "focus on real problems"? What?? -- do you have ANY idea how uncomfortable it is to sleep on uneven pillows?

      Not sure whats going on here....do you happen to have two heads?

    32. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If you are registered with the state to be the overseeing signatory on a marriage certificate

      And when did bakers gain that authority? The previous post said decorating a wedding cake.

    33. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The Second Amendment is less clear than you say. How many explanatory clauses are there in the Constitution? It strongly suggests that the reason for the right to bear arms is the militia. (It also suggests to me that we all should have the right to bear military arms, such as real assault rifles capable of automatic or multishot fire, since a deer rifle hasn't been the equivalent of a military rifle for a long time now. Not to mention that the "unorganized militia of the US" is rather sweeping in inclusion.)

      However, extending it to the right to have gun-making equipment gets rather iffy.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    34. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The Federalist papers were written by three people on their own initiative, using a pseudonym, to try to get the Constitution passed. In other words, propaganda rather than legal documents (just like the Declaration of Independence). On any given point, they may or may not represent original intent.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    35. Re:So much for the 2nd Amendment by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting those who wrote the federalists papers were not involved with the writing of the Bill of rights or the Constitution, and that they were therefor incapable of stating what their intent was in framing them as such?

  8. FEDEX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those guys refused to ship my recalled rifle to the manufacturer for a safety repair. They didn't care it was a recall and that it was legal. I ended up going with UPS who said it was a common complaint.

    1. Re:FEDEX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      businesses are well within their rights to refuse to do business with you. As annoying as it can be this is good. I went through similar pain recently trying to ship a damn laptop where several companies refused due to it having a lithium battery, ironically it was fedex that actually shipped it while the others refused.

    2. Re:FEDEX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      businesses are well within their rights to refuse to do business with you.

      Except, of course unless you are a homosexual. In that case, anyone you ask must do business with you. There are Christians who are being prosecuted right now for refusing to do custom work (flower arrangements, cake decorating) for homosexuals.

    3. Re: FEDEX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh fuck off and stop repeating the same BS.

  9. Watch out Amazon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because of the possibility that bulk cellulose based dry materials in leaf form are a precursor to a potentially-restricted incendiary weapon, we must prevent all future book shipments until local and federal laws and regulations regarding these materials are made clear.

  10. How do they feel about all the other CNC machines? by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

    Because that's all it is... and there are plenty of cheaper ones out there.

  11. RE: expression of a political preference by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lol. If he just told the FedEx rep that he was shipping 1'x1'x1' aluminum mills, there would be no problem. This is what he gets for over sharing. It's like telling police officers you smoke weed.

  12. What is this Fed-Ex and how do you use it by mega_man_x5000 · · Score: 0

    Does anyone use fedex..UPS FTW

  13. I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's your problem Cody? If it's just a CNC mill, than ship it as a CNC mill with some extra data files.

    You really, really need to learn something from the sex toy industry. There are all kinds of silly legal bans in a number of states on various flavors of vibrators. The industry gets around it every time simply by using different descriptions and labels.

    It's not hard.

    1. Re:I don't get it. by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 3, Insightful

      sex toy industry... It's not hard.

      I see what you did there....

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    2. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really, really need to learn something from the sex toy industry. There are all kinds of silly legal bans in a number of states on various flavors of vibrators. The industry gets around it every time simply by using different descriptions and labels.

      This guy isn't complaining because he can't ship what he wants, he's complaining because it's good business. More complains = more news coverage = more sales.

    3. Re:I don't get it. by mlts · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Where I live, having more than four sex toys is an "obscenity" state jail felony as per Texas penal codes. So, they are sold as "teaching devices", "medical mockups", or other items.

      This is a fight that doesn't need to be dealt with. Just call it a CNC mill, which is designed for fabricating automotive parts. Hoppes calls their #9 product, "lubricating oil", instead of "gun oil." Might as well not have to deal with a wedge issue when it comes to business if one doesn't have to.

    4. Re:I don't get it. by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      This is a fight that doesn't need to be dealt with. Just call it a CNC mill, which is designed for fabricating automotive parts. Hoppes calls their #9 product, "lubricating oil", instead of "gun oil." Might as well not have to deal with a wedge issue when it comes to business if one doesn't have to.

      Unless the whole point is to create publicity by deliberately creating wedge issues. In other words, it doesn't matter what FedEx said, because now I have a great advertising platform - buy my stuff!.

      Like Apple developers who deliberately code something that will not pass muster to cry foul and say "oh, we have an Android version buy that!".

      The goal is not force companies to act in ways you want them to act so you can create attention for yourself. "Poor me, the big bad FedEx won't ship my stuff! Oh, btw, I have a new gunsmithing machine! You can buy it today!". That's how I read this advertisement.

      That's what it really is - an ad. Creating a wedge gives you publicity that can be worth several million dollars and be far more effective.

    5. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that it doesn't advance gun rights. In fact, it might just make UPS give the middle finger to shipping firearms as well.

      This reminds me of the knuckleheads who were carrying their ARs at low ready, claiming OC rights here in Texas. The result is that they pissed off so many people, MDA and Bloomberg's other groups used that to ensure Texas is not going to ever become an open carry state anytime in the future.

    6. Re:I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sex toy industry... It's not hard.

      Then you're doing something wrong...

  14. lawyers are not geeks; geeks are not lawyers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Intent matters. You sell a bong as for tobacco and you're fine - you sell it as "FOR GETTING HIGH ON MARIJUANA" and you're in the shit. Argue with the law if you want (although the law makes a lot more sense than geeks like to think), but don't argue from a position of ignorance.

    1. Re:lawyers are not geeks; geeks are not lawyers. by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      Not in my home state. A bong is classified as 'drug paraphenalia' whether you smoke tobacco or no.

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    2. Re:lawyers are not geeks; geeks are not lawyers. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      Argue with the law if you want (although the law makes a lot more sense than geeks like to think), but don't argue from a position of ignorance.

      the problem is you are correct. but it is fedex who is the one arguing from the position of ignorance. There is nothing wrong with a CNC machine, in fact, that is the argument everyone loves to bring up when pointing out that 3d printing is not going to change things because people could ALWAYS do it on their own.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re:lawyers are not geeks; geeks are not lawyers. by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Which state is that? Seems insane to me.

    4. Re:lawyers are not geeks; geeks are not lawyers. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Not in my home state. A bong is classified as 'drug paraphenalia' whether you smoke tobacco or no.

      probably not, because that would eliminate all water filters. usually it's only once it's got residue on it that it becomes drug paraphenalia.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:lawyers are not geeks; geeks are not lawyers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a bong is more likely to be used to smoke weed, not tobacco

  15. Irony by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So here's a guy who calls himself a "libertarian", declaring that it's not legal for a private entity to refuse to do business with him based on their political views.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So here's a guy who calls himself a "libertarian", declaring that it's not legal for a private entity to refuse to do business with him based on their political views.

      Thats not Irony.
      That is simple boring common hypocrisy.

    2. Re:Irony by Gliscameria · · Score: 2

      Any freedoms end if they hurt business. That's the new Libertarianism.

      --
      X
    3. Re:Irony by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If only he was LBGT then he could join the bandwagon of being a victim of discrimination for someone refusing him some service. That's been all the rage the past few months.

    4. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what I'm reading - he's pointing out that FedEx is giving the excuse that this is a legal issue, when in fact, there is no legal issue. He then makes the assumption that if they aren't doing it for legal reasons, they are probably doing it for political reasons.

      Pointing this out isn't any sort of hypocrisy on the part of libertarianism. Additionally, Cody Wilson is a self-described "Free market anarchist" - this is anarcho-capitalism, not Libertarianism. I know a lot of people don't really recognize the difference - even self-proclaimed Libertarians, but one focuses on civil rights matters and the other focuses on economics.

      There's quite the division you'll find if you dig into that a bit. A lot of libertarians absolutely hate the takeover that's happened the last few years with anarcho-capitalists labeling themselves as libertarians and utterly polluting the idea of what libertarianism focused around. People like Mises are often hailed as the founding fathers of libertarianism, when in fact that's anarcho-capitalism. Regardless of what Mises himself proclaimed. Libertarianism has its actual roots in the founding fathers, John Locke and civil rights movements; NOT this free-market claptrap - "free market" principles and economic anarchy were NEVER the focus of Libertarianism, or even a part of it until anarcho-capitalists decided they needed a new, more publically palatable label for themselves.

      Nowadays, you can't seem to separate the two.

    5. Re:Irony by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      not really the argument being made

      fed ex is claiming that it might be illegal to do so (which is wrong), has nothing to do with political views.

      In fact, if fedex came out and claimed it was their views, im sure cody would simply say ok, and use UPS without much of an issue

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those are completely different issues, and you do both sides a disservice by conflating them. People who are discriminated against for how they were born versus people who are discriminated against for having a particular political view. Granted, changing a political view is quite difficulty – particularly because you'll naturally believe you're right – but it's not even close to the same thing as sexuality.

    7. Re:Irony by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

      So here's a guy who calls himself a "libertarian", declaring that it's not legal for a private entity to refuse to do business with him based on their political views.

      Where does he declare that it's illegal for FedEx to refuse his business?

      "Defense Distributed's founder Cody Wilson argues that rather than a legal ambiguity, FedEx is instead facing up to the political gray area of enabling the sale of new, easily accessible tools that can make anything -- including deadly weapons. 'They're acting like this is legal when in fact it's the expression of a political preference,' says Wilson."

      He's declared that they've disguised a political decision as 'due caution' concerning a legal issue, not that what FedEx is doing is itself illegal. Because you'd have to own a political decision, but you can blame the government for 'ambiguity' even if the government isn't actually threatening to interpret the law that way.

      It's not irony, it's poor reading comprehension... on your part.

    8. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard a radio interview with the guy a while back. I had high hopes he would be a constitutional defender with a nuanced political viewpoint. Turns out he's just another dickhead young republican frat boy who likes the sound of his own voice and simply repeats the usual poorly thought out Fox News talking points without anything new to add besides "on a 3D printer". Yawn, what a disappointment.

    9. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh dear, you still think that gays or transsexuals are born that way.

      Perhaps you are beyond help.

    10. Re:Irony by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      Really? So businesses don't have the right to refuse to serve people based on their own views. So isn't that what Fedex is doing now. With of course a threat apparently from the government overhead....OH WAIT...that's exactly what the government is doing to people who refuse to do business with people they don't want to because of personal views as well. Seems to me, that in both cases the government is the problem here.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    11. Re:Irony by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If FedEx doesn't ship something for you because of your race, sex, religion, or certain other enumerated reasons, that's illegal. If a white male hetero Protestant can send something FedEx, then a black lesbian neopagan can send the same sort of thing, or the lawsuits start. They can put restrictions on shipping particular types of things, as long as they apply to everybody. If the straight male WASP can't send gunmaking equipment, and neither can the black lesbian neopagan, that's legal.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  16. Re:How do they feel about all the other CNC machin by itzly · · Score: 1

    If that's all it is, then there's not much of a problem. People can just order one of the other CNC machines.

  17. Re: expression of a political preference by zieroh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's almost like he was more interested in publicity than in actually shipping a product.

    --
    People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  18. Free advertising! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't realize the progress that has been made, thanks for keeping me informed FedEx!

  19. Re:How do they feel about all the other CNC machin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Watch out for tools in general folks. Imagine if you bought a screwdriver online - it could be used to make BOMBS and such. That's why we have to ban all the tools.

  20. Re:legal liability situation by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    They are not just avoiding a legal liability situation, but an ethical liability situation as well.

  21. But they ship firearms... by twotacocombo · · Score: 1

    They won't ship a CNC mill for the above stated reason, yet they'll gladly ship functional firearms on a regular basis?

    1. Re:But they ship firearms... by luther349 · · Score: 1

      that because shipping a firearm the laws are clear. but if its really just a cnc mill why worry.

    2. Re:But they ship firearms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's legal to mail black powder firearms. Plus the machine in question only finishes 80% receivers. Which are almost complete receivers minus a few extra holes and ports milled out. Any hobby mill can do the same with 80% template guides. All at the fraction of cost of this unit. Heck with patience, a steady hand and 80% template guides, a dremel could finish the receiver.

  22. Scary stuff by thule · · Score: 1

    I understand why a company would worry about this. They want to save their business and don't want to be wrapped up in something bad. But here is the thing, it seems to me that in this country where we ask the question "Is this legal?" way too often. This is just one case of it. We have natural rights in this country. The Bill of Rights limits what the government can do that could threaten those rights. Buying a machine to make weapons to defend yourself is a natural right. Note, that making a gun for yourself is different than buying one of the machines to make guns to sell to others. That *is* covered by law. Building guns for others makes you a gun manufacturer. The default position should be for a company to say there is no law that limits an individual exercising their right and until there is, we will ship it.

    1. Re:Scary stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We ask 'is this legal' all the time because we run into situations where it wouldn't be all the time. Want to cross the street? Better find a crosswalk, or you'll be jaywalking. Want to have a barbeque? Better make sure that having a fire in your backyard happens to be legal that saturday (some days it is, some days it isn't where I live). Want to get rid of those bank statements and other papers with sensitive personal information? Better feed it to the dog, because if you burn it in your BBQ grill you could get in a lot of trouble.

  23. Re: expression of a political preference by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    well now everyone knows he has a product. and i doubt UPS will refuse his money. so it is a win win for them, while at the same time painting fedex in a bad light (regardless of this being their "right")

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  24. Context is everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not what he is saying. Read the article. What he said was that FedEx is making it out like they can't ship his device because of criminal liability, when in fact, they would just rather not be in the middle of a mess with political dimensions.

  25. Libertarian karma by saihung · · Score: 1

    Fedex is a for-profit corporation. It can refuse any customer it wants. That's the libertarian way, right? Private individuals and companies should only conduct business with mutual consent? Well, good. The libertarian behind "Defense Distributed" is getting what he asked for.

    1. Re:Libertarian karma by drunk_punk · · Score: 1

      I don't have a probelm with FedEX not delivering a CNC mill. They can choose what kind of liability to accept, or not as the case may be. I don't have an issue with Cody and the DD folks selling CNC mills. I think the issue at hand is fedex claiming they will not be delivering this item under the pretense that it may or may not be illegal to put said mills into the hands of citizens. Which, of course it is legal to make firearms, for yourself. This is a total "We have NO BALLS to stand up for what we believe, so we'regoing to spread some FUD."

      And this is what should be pissing everyone off...

  26. Re: expression of a political preference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I worked for a gun store 20 years ago. At the time FedEx wouldn't ship anything that was, or was part of, a firearm. No stocks. I did once ship a small pin and I just labeled it as a metal pin.

  27. All Machine Tools -- Oh noes!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By this reasoning, all machine tools are prohibited because they can be used to manufacture a gun.

  28. usps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So just ship it USPS and see what the actual rules are if any do exist.

  29. The USA has a gun problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The USA has a gun problem - not enough people have them.

  30. What we need is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Net Neutrality for delivery companies... they should be required to deliver whatever I push through their pipe.

  31. It not illegal to make your own firearm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it is not illegal to sell or ship devices to facilitate it.

    This is just FedEx and its anti-gun agenda that it is always trying to figure out how to foist on everyone while pretending "it's not me!"

  32. Just more business for UPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just more business for UPS

  33. Can't blame them by butchersong · · Score: 1

    New York is suing UPS for 180 million dollars for not preventing their customers from using them to ship cigarettes and avoiding cities huge revenue stream of a tobacco tax. You think they would hesitate to do the same for machining equipment that has been marketed as able to "manufacture" a gun? http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/n...

    1. Re:Can't blame them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FedEx and UPS should agree to no longer ship to or do business with entities that sue them.

  34. There's still a legal problem by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

    I am no fan of firearms and would take them out of your (not cold and dead) hands if I could. That said, isn't FedEx a common carrier? There are rules for such things.

    1. Re:There's still a legal problem by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There are rules for such things.

      The rules say they can refuse a shipment that they believe to be illegal, and notify law enforcement, too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:There's still a legal problem by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      The rules say they can refuse a shipment that they believe to be illegal, and notify law enforcement, too.

      Yes. The problem here is establishing when a tool is one for violating the law, and when is it just a tool. And courts can place much credence upon the creator's own explanation of the tool, which is damned incriminating, IMO.

      So, what bothers me about this is the extent to which it impairs the transport of other similar tools, not this particular one.

    3. Re:There's still a legal problem by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Fortunately, it's not illegal to make a [legal] gun. Having made it, it's illegal to do many things with it without special dispensation or a special license, but as I'm sure you know that tends not to be the responsibility of the manufacturer so long as the device can successfully be shown to have "substantial non infringing use"- I believe the saying goes.

      What it boils down to is that you shouldn't attempt to intentionally provoke people with fancy names unless you're looking for attention. Simply declaring it as a CNC machine would have done the job. But perhaps publicity was the goal.

      I predict that FedEx will eventually decide that they should ship this stuff anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:There's still a legal problem by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      And their "belief" need not be based on anything at all, afterall.

      I was reading a case about a man. A man who essentially bothered a police officer. He interfered with an arrest, he was told to leave the scene, he flailed his arms wildly while interfering and being told to leave.

      This man was arrested for disorderly conduct. The courts basically neutered the entire concept of disorderly conduct and ruled none of this constituted it.

      Now, if police had to base their belief as to what the law was on that, then maybe they would be liable for false arrest for arresting people for disorderly conduct as they continue to do today more than 20 years later. However, they still seem to "believe" that anything that annoys them is disorderly conduct.... so it continues to be an arrestable offence but not a crime because....all police need to do is "believe" the same way....and they are absolved of any liability.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    5. Re:There's still a legal problem by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      More recently Public Defender Arrested While Defending Client and Video Shows Defense Attorney's Arrest Inside Courthouse. Obviously the police were way out of line and charges against the Attorney were dropped. I don't know if she will pursue the officers in court.

  35. What else can be used in the manufacture of guns? by kimvette · · Score: 1

    What else can be used in the manufacture of firearms?

    * die grinders
    * drills
    * welders
    * Crucibles
    * plaster (good for making casting molds)
    * springs
    * saws
    * CNC mills from other vendors

    and yet, they have no problem shipping any of that, right?

    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  36. Tractor parts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for export only

  37. Don't need to read the article to understand why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    FedEx is probably playing CYA.

    The problem is that DD's box is designed to machine "80% receivers" to completion. The reason FedEx is playing CYA is because an 80% receiver is legally a "non-gun" in the eyes of the BATFE (until the policy gets changed) and anyone - and I mean ANYONE - can buy an 80% receiver because it's just a lump of metal. It's the machining of a couple of holes, pockets, and chambers that convert an 80% receiver into a firearm. Yes, the BATFE pretty much defines a firearm as the part of that can hold the fire control group/magazine/barrel. Which is why the BATFE looks at some of the laws of California (PRC - Majority of US Constitution/Bill of Rights/Federal Law considered invalid there because they're "special") and says "Huh?"

    Anyway, since anyone can buy a lump of metal called an 80% receiver - including minors, etc - and also purchase (if they have the money) a "takes no skill to machine 80% receiver into a firearm" box, it's pretty obvious that a minor - or someone else who is disallowed purchase of a firearm - can buy both and fabricate a AR-15 type platform. So FedEx is likely looking at this and going "Yeeks! I don't want to get sued."

    Now, machining an 80% receiver to 100% - which takes some skill - in your own home is perfectly legal, assuming you are allowed to possess firearms. Machining 300 or 80% receivers to 100% in your own home is perfectly legal - if you are allowed to possess firearms and do not intend to sell them - but if people [BATFE, local cops, etc] might look at you REAL funny if you do. You can even sell a firearm you manufacture - however, there's a bunch of laws pertaining to how many you can sell, and you can't build with the intent to sell, etc. It all gets into a "can't disprove that you manufactured with intent to sell" situation unless you have a handy piece of paper called an FFL - but if you are an FFL holder, you're not likely to be "manufacturing" with one of DD's "single purpose" CNC machines. FFL'd manufacturers usually have real tools, or connections with other manufacturing companies to get the parts that they want.

    The gray area that likely has FedEx a little freaked is the "anybody can do this" combined with the "push a button" features - and the habit of people suing everybody and everything related. Remember, in the US there are the "Can't sue a manufacturer for producing something that does what it is supposed to do" laws which shields companies like Colt, Bushmaster, and other from wrongful death suits, etc. So, in order to prevent the inevitable "sue the delivery company for shipping a device to this guy who built this firearm and then sold it to this other guy who used it to kill a dozen people" lawsuit brought by ambulance-chasers.

    I find the "we're not going to ship" response from FedEx entirely understandable, especially considering the "sue everyone" behavior endemic to the US legal system. Remember, under the US legal system, if you can sue your competitor - or person with an opposing viewpoint often enough - you can legally bankrupt them to the point where they are no longer in business - or if they are a person, homeless and disenfranchised. This is not to say I approve of FedEx's decision/policy. But my approval or disapproval of FedEx doesn't matter, since I am just someone posting as Anonymous Coward.
     

  38. No more FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess I won't be shipping anything FedEx anymore...

  39. Re: RE: expression of a political preference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of all the stupid fuck posts, this one should be on top. He did everything legally to ship his product and for no reason at all FedEx simply refuses to ship it even though it'scovered under their rules and as well it's a legal product to make and sell so f*** you and f*** FedEx too.
    This yet another example of the govt trying to force the people to do something that they can't legally stop him from doing. Do any posters here actually read or are you all a bunch of 12yr olds with time on your hands?

  40. Re:How do they feel about all the other CNC machin by TheGavster · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Grizzly Industrial runs into trouble with this; they explicitly advertise how you can use their machine tools to make guns, and in fact some SKUs are labelled as "gunsmithing lathes".

    --
    "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
  41. Re: expression of a political preference by unrtst · · Score: 2

    It's like telling police officers you smoke weed.

    No... but it is like labeling the pipes your store sells as "hash pipes". Some stores (possibly only in certain states, especially now that pot is legalized in some states) will happily sell you bongs and small glass pipes and bubblers and one hitters etc etc etc so long as you do not refer to them by any of their cannabis-associated names. Some go a step further, and will ask you to leave the store if you do refer to them by those names, pretending that "they are not in the business of selling paraphernalia". This is a WHOLE LOT like that (though I think the store may have got in trouble with the law _before_ instituting that policy).

  42. Re: expression of a political preference by HiThereImBob · · Score: 1

    It's like telling police officers you smoke weed.

    in Colorado. It that still a problem if it's legal?

  43. Nothing at all related... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There’s nothing about it that is specifically related to firearms except the hocus pocus of the marketing."

    Except that for starters it is called the Ghost Gunner.
    Secondly, per the homepage for the product, "As shipped, Ghost Gunner manufactures any mil-spec AR-15 lower receiver to completion."
    Lastly, per the homepage for the product, "At $1500, Ghost Gunner is the only affordable, automated package for expanding the rifleman's material and political franchise." - Automated being the key word there.

    Yeah... Ghost Gunner doesn't specifically relate to firearms at all. Except that when it arrives you can "point and click" (per the homepage) and build a lower receiver with "no experience in CNC machining at all."

    What a joke. Call it what it is. A machine to create gun parts in your home, specifically the parts that are regulated by the government. If I were FedEx I'd definitely cover myself. Does that mean the ability to make guns in your home should be illegal? I don't know the answer to that. Neither does FedEx. So what?

  44. Not at all. Actions have consequences. by mpercy · · Score: 1

    When libertarians expound that businesses should be able to deny service to any one for any reason, they also say "but then they can expect to be held up o public ridicule for it." So a baker has a right to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, but can expect protests on his doorstep.

    Same thing here: FedEx can refuse to do their services for any reason they care to spout (or to keep secret if they wish) as is their right (or at least it ought to be).

    Two things though. One is the concomitant public exposure for their decision. If they HAD refused because of gayness or blackness or something else, it would be a media circus. But since they refused on some wishy washy left-leaning reasoning, the normal chorus of "corporations are evil" will be silented for a bit.

    The second thing is that their stated reasons are apparently hogwash. Claiming a law requires them to do X when there is no such law is just weak. And they should rightly be ridiculed for that.

    1. Re:Not at all. Actions have consequences. by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      No no no no no. What is right (or right, acceptable) isn't the same as what is condoned, or a good idea. The liberal (libertarian) position is "I'm not going to force them to stop." You know, keep your nose in your own business. Formally, this is called the non-aggression principle.

      Now, FedEx is declining to ship the product because they're being spineless and afraid of legal action. (Or at least this employee, corporations tend to be less consistent about this stuff than the language would lead you to believe.)

      Even if it was entirely internal, no DOJ pressure, sure they have a right to decline business for whatever reason they like (or none at all), and that'd be a bad idea.

      And people have a right to protest (not necessarily on another person's property), or to boycott the product, but that'd be a bad idea too.

      (Sometimes, people do have to say no for the sake of saying no. By all means, deny people a cake every once in a while for no reason at all, just to remind society yes, you can't be forced to bake a cake for someone just because they're a certain demographic. That's called slavery, slavery is bad, mkay?)

    2. Re:Not at all. Actions have consequences. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > "but then they can expect to be held up o public ridicule for it."

      LOL. You'd also bring a knife to a gun fight.

      'public ridicule' is not going to be particularly effective against a billion dollar corporation. Libertarians are so fucking stupid.

  45. Thank you FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who thinks this is a harmless device that should be sold for fun and profit should be locked in a small box with the key thrown away.

    This thing gives license to any criminal to create guns at a whim that can't be traced.

    When your loved one is gunned down with one and the police say sorry, we can't help, it's untraceable. How are you going to feel?

  46. Memories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    UPS once told me I couldn't ship a handle because it was part of a firearm.

    Nevermind it had to arrive in the mail to reach me.

    It was my mistake for asking them to package it for me.

    Once I put it in a box they shipped it as a 'replacement parts kit.'

  47. What happened to the free market? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    It sounds like someone is trying to force a company to transport a good to a customer. That sounds counter to the free market as I understand it. Under a free market isn't a company free to turn down any business they don't want to be involved with? If FedEx doesn't want to handle and deliver this product, why are people trying to force them to?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  48. Just use one of the many other CNC machines... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    ... to do the exact same thing.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  49. I applaud their stand by dhaen · · Score: 1

    Whatever weasel words they use to justify their actions, the machine is primarily intended to create weapons to kill and maim people.

    1. Re:I applaud their stand by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Anyone who ever wondered how good people can support tyranny, bookmark this comment. A healthy helping of ignorance combined with unshakable faith that those other people are wrong.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:I applaud their stand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the primary purpose of an AR-15 (the particular weapon for which this mill is designed to finish an '80%' lower receiver) is to "kill and maim people", then there are a *huge* number of defective AR-15s out there, because they are virtually *never* used to "kill and maim people".

  50. Re:How do they feel about all the other CNC machin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey dumbass, it's "gunmaker's lathe" and the name is just a colloquialism from the 19th century. It's an accepted term of art, not a marketing device describing the capabilities of the equipment.

  51. Puffed Up Chests by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    I have seen really lousy fathers make loud declarations about how much they love their kids. They are simply trying to gather a pinch of status from others in their herd. Fed Ex puffs up its chest and does something idiotic that they know the public will take as being socially responsible and concerned. It is a twisted attempt at free advertising. Obviously milling machines are sold to hobbyists every day and most will never be used to make a gun. So when did this all start? Back in the 1970s Fed Ex made a fortune with rapid delivery of phone sales checks and deliveries to the victims of telemarketers or phones salesmen. Usually they demanded the buyer send payment before delivery by overnight Fed Ex. The crooks did not use the US Mail due to policing abilities of the Post Office. Then the so called product was shipped. The companies lawyers knew that if an empty box was shipped the law had a better shot at prosecution. So instead of an empty box the buyer might find a piece of scrap wood or a rock in the package. So Fed Ex pulled in a lot of income in the initial overnight delivery of the checks and then collected another fee delivering the worthless package. Since the same addresses were used over and over again as the point of sale Fed Ex had to know they were working for con men and the federal law enforcement folks jumped in and considered shippers to be in conspiracy with the crooks. Eventually this has evolved to a point at which a company can be in trouble for actually shipping a good and useful product such as a small milling machine.

  52. Re: expression of a political preference by cdrudge · · Score: 1

    Is it a local/state officer or a federal agent?

  53. Seems a little odd... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it's not against federal law for citizens of the U.S. to make firearms. Actually as a private citizen you don't even have you place a Serial # on the weapon. This is common knowledge and has been happening for a long long time. Also, FedEx already ships weapons, ammunition, machine guns and other things. It's pretty common today to purchase a Firearm online then FedEx will ship it to a gun dealer. FedEx has also shipped ammo right to my door several times no biggie. Not against the law. So not really sure what the issue is here.

  54. By FedEx by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no such restriction. We will no longer use FedEx in my company, as a result of this.

    We purchase telecommunications equipment and supplies, but we don't feel a shipping company should get involved with Politics.

  55. Suicides by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The CEO and entire board all comitted suicide right after their announcement."

    I would not be surprised if we start seeing stories that begin something like that.

  56. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  57. Re: expression of a political preference by painandgreed · · Score: 1

    It's like telling police officers you smoke weed.

    I'm in Seattle. So long as you didn't blow the smoke in their face, the police would just shrug. If they were the police patrolling Hempfest, they'd hand you a bag of chips.

  58. Bad marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Defense Distributed should rebrand themselves as selling printers that make flower arrangements for gay weddings and dare Fedex not to ship.

  59. Re:What else can be used in the manufacture of gun by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I think they require holes in the carton if shipping live welders.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  60. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  61. Shittiest CNC mill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is the shittiest CNC mill I have ever seen, let alone for $1200.

    I can get a better CNC machine for $600; not a good one, but a better one.

  62. By the same logic, we can ship firearms too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of declaring the item to be a firearm, we simply label it as a " High Speed Long Distance Hole Punch " :D

  63. Re: expression of a political preference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like telling police officers you smoke weed.

    Sure, if you're talking about someone in say Colorado. I wonder if FedEx ships fertilizer to Colorado that ends up in drug producers' hands. Actually, the weed smoking in Colorado is still more illegal than owning a CNC to produce your own firearms. Pot is still illegal under federal law. Owning the CNC yourself is exactly what the ATF has explicitly said people must do to be in compliance with the law!

  64. Will they ship a Ghost Bullet Machine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2015/02/24/why-is-the-atf-moving-to-ban-common-rifle-ammo/

  65. Why is any action with the word "gun" a second ame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DD wanted to make an issue by pointedly declaring the CNC mill a gun making machine. This was successful, and doubtless achieved the purpose with much publicity. Obviously, the product shipping case could be declared something like a CNC mill and been fine.

    I wonder what the reaction would have been if I were to try to ship Armadillo Bile Mixture ingredients:
    http://hallowedhalls.wikidot.com/potion:armadillo-bile-mixture.

  66. NAZIs At It Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a typical response of these leftist NAZI types. We don't like it, so we aren't going to let you have it. I suppose they will be burning books next.