Slashdot Mirror
DOJ Reaches Settlement On Publication of Files About 3D Printed Firearms (joshblackman.com)
He Who Has No Name writes: Those who remember Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed -- the self-described cryptoanarchist and his organization that published plans for 3D printable firearm parts, respectively -- also remember that not long after the plans for the printable Liberator single-shot pistol hit the web, the Department of State seized the Defense Distributed website and prohibited Wilson from publishing 3D printable firearm plans, claiming violations of ITAR -- the International Traffic in Arms Regulation, a U.S. law taxing and restricting the distribution of a wide variety of physical goods listed as having military value. Slashdot covered the website seizure here (the Department of Defense was initially misreported in sources to have been the agency responsible).
In both a First and Second Amendment win, the Second Amendment Foundation has settled with the Department of State after suing on behalf of Defense Distributed. Slashdot reader schwit1 shares an excerpt from the report: "Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs' attorney's fees, and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint. Significantly, the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
In both a First and Second Amendment win, the Second Amendment Foundation has settled with the Department of State after suing on behalf of Defense Distributed. Slashdot reader schwit1 shares an excerpt from the report: "Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs' attorney's fees, and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint. Significantly, the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
Finally, a good reason to get that 3D printer!
This is great news for the school-shooting industry. I expect that the NRA and Second Amendment activists are thrilled at having these new tools to murder children.
Yeah, because the existing AR-15 and similar weapons which are readily available all across the country are no match for these plastic super weapons, which on a good day, may be able to fire one bullet without exploding and killing the shooter!
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Wild hyperbole like that is why fewer and fewer people take the Left seriously about anything any more.
The Government re-categorized common small arms to no longer fall under ITAR, but instead be regulated by standard Dept. of Commerce international trade regulations.
Since ITAR no longer applies to Defense Distributed, the case is over.
But it's just an administrative policy change. The next administration could swap it back at any time. It needs Congress to pass a law protecting blueprints and plans, or for the Supreme Court to decide a case in favor of the First Amendment to prevent future victims.
There is an expanding Open Source Space community. You can meet them at the upcoming Open Source Cubesat Workshop. This is actually an interesting precedent for us, because satellites and various space technologies are also "munitions" under ITAR or EAR, both laws have a carve-out for Open Source, and here it has been tested.
Second-amendment issues are out-of-scope for most space research organizations, so nothing said about that.
Bruce Perens.
What a fucking douche. There are millions of people who own firearms and don't shoot children. There are drivers who intentionally run over children. Are you going to forbid kit car plans because someone might use them for killing children? There are legitimate uses of a weapon. Self defense, hunting (legalized and regulated), sport (skeet shooting), and of course on the firing range.
You and your fucking comment are as sick as the deranged asswipes who shoot at innocent people, children included. Fucking retard.
>"Of course guns are military. What a stupid thing to say. Thanks, Trump!"
? The article said:
"The government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
And that is 100% true. It didn't say "guns are military" or "guns are not military", they said that non-automatic firearms UP TO .50 caliber are not INHERENTLY military (IE, exclusively for military use).
That was a really interesting concession, because otherwise the government would've run afoul of U.S. v. Miller, which found that gun control was not a violation of rights if the weapon in question was not militarily useful.
For the upper receiver, sure. The lower receiver houses the trigger group, mag release, and a few other things that don't operate under the firing pressure. Would I trust current filament with this? Maybe, maybe not. I still like that the plans are out, though.
I'm guessing no one told the OP of this tread that you can download free PDFs of all metal machine pistols off of the web off of random public and open websites. Such as http://thehomegunsmith.com/
I can see it now, pissed off guy wants to go on a shooting spree.
Order 3d printer on amazon after hours of research, forgot to order filament, order filament, open cad, sketch rifle, does a horrible job, searches internet for a pattern, downloads pattern, load pattern into 3d printer, hit print, hours later, realizes he has wrong filament, re-order filament, printer pauses ruining print, try printing again, platter not cold enough and ruins print, platter to hot and melts print, after 2 dozen tries, gets a good print. Realizes he needs bullets, drives to sporting store buys bullets. Takes gun into woods, gun shoots 1 bullet at a time due to stress, gun jams, gun breaks after 4 bullets.
Queue up another print job to print replacement gun, repeat, while waiting for his 3rd print, subscribes to 3d printer forums.
Over a month late, finally gets a good prototype gun printed, forgets why he was mad, and starts printing 3d printed boats.
That was a curious ruling in itself, given that at the founding of the United States, the expectation was that most warships would be in private hands rather than government. That's why the Constitution includes a provision for issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal to charter private citizens to conduct warfare on its behalf.
Imagine that 10 years from now there are 3D printers that print really strong metal parts which can be assembled into a machine gun or similar. Then what? Just because today's printers can only build crappy one-shot plastic guns doesn't mean that tomorrow's printers won't be able to print far more dangerous DIY weapons.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
Not to mention serving as a deterrent for invasion. The AR-15 may not be the best of sniper rifles, especially the lower cal variants but occupation would certainly be uncomfortable with a dozen snipers along every street. This isn't like Iraq or Afghanistan where they could be anywhere, in the US they ARE everywhere.
Except they aren't talking about 'Assault Rifles', or as they are more commonly called... 'machine guns'... which are already heavily regulated.
'Assault Weapons' are the made up term they use today, which encompasses primarily cosmetic features... unless you want to get to the point of cracking down on all semi-automatic handguns... which at last check SCOTUS has ruled a constitutional right to be able to own.
Except the rifles which the left seeks to ban mostly shoot 223... which on average is about half the weight as say... my 270 deer rifle. Both fire a round at about the same speed, however my 270 has about 2x as much muzzle energy.
Take this comparison of a 223 vs 30-06 against a pair of watermelons: the not at all scary looking 'hunting rifle' has far better wide hole leaving abilities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Well don't tell the urbanites, but hunting rifles are basically sniper rifles. But keep it under your hat or we'll have California dems trying to ban high end optics.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
from the guy down the street selling them for $100 bucks a pop. Use it for a one time kill/assassination.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If you don't mind it exploding in your hand when you target practice. I can think of a million better/more useful things to make with a 3D printer than an unreliable, dangerous, inaccurate, single-shot, plastic "gun".
Also, just because you can make it yourself doesn't mean it is legal to do so, or possess it, or carry it, or use it.
One pleasant surprise from the last election is that gun rights are now safe for decades to come - by some estimates, 25 to 40 years.
Also, it was pointed out that gun rights lobbies have not pressed gun ownership issues to the supreme court in recent decades because it would have resulted in a tossup decision (making precedent that would be very hard to overturn). Now that we have seated actual constitutionalists, the expectation is that after Ruth Bader Ginsburg(*) retires and Trump appoints the next justice, we will see some push back on gun control that gets settled by the supremes, making precedent that will be hard to overturn in the future.
And lest there be wailing and gnashing-of-teeth from the Left and/or Democrats about this, note that supreme court picks were floated as the most important issue in the last election, said issue going largely unheard amid the torrent of character assassination.
And also, in the first months of 2016, the Democratic Party moved $60 million from down-ballot races to the Clinton campaign to combat Bernie Sanders in the primary, Bernie having raised $40 million to Clinton's $20 million(**). That action did three things:
1) It gave the election to Republicans, because Bernie would have won against Trump
2) It alienated the Bernie supporters, many of whom stayed home or voted against the party candidate
3) It impoverished all the down-ballot races, which allowed Republicans to take those races/seats as well
So we're back to "you are responsible for your own distress", and "if you don't like it, field and vote for effective leaders that a majority of Americans can get behind", and "otherwise shut the fuck up because we're tired of all your shit!".
It's not like you didn't have a fair and equal chance of getting your way the first time.
(*) Who I personally admire, and respect her views on human rights
(**) How this is not a violation of FEC rules I don't know. At the time everyone was saying "It's a private organization, they can do whatever they want".
Reaching back a bit, but Korean shopowners used them very effectively to defend their shops/homes during the Rodney King riots.
Old joke but true.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Don't you oppress him with your accurate definitions.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It's videos like that which demonstrate the lie that is the "assault weapon". The gun grabbers say they want to take those "evil weapons of war" from the public but leave us with our hunting rifles. That's a lie and if they know anything about rifles or hunting then they know it's a lie. So either they are ignorant or they assume the people are ignorant.
Oh, and an "assault rifle" is a real thing. An assault rifle is a weapon capable of switching between single shot with each trigger pull (semi-automatic) and multiple shots per trigger pull (burst or fully-automatic). To the DOJ anything that is capable of firing more than one cartridge with a pull of a trigger is a "machine gun". A shotgun fires multiple projectiles with each pull of the trigger but that does not make it a machine gun so long as all the projectiles are in a single cartridge. There are air guns that can fire multiple projectiles but since the projectiles are not contained in a cartridge that is also not a machine gun. State laws vary on this such as my own where any "dangerous weapon" is categorized along with firearms, so even pepper spray or a taser needs a permit to carry concealed.
The definition of an assault weapon varies by state. There was a big deal made about some insane person murdering schoolchildren with an "assault weapon" which was a lie. Assault weapons, by their definition, are banned and so no one has committed a mass murder in a school with an assault weapon as defined in that state. Now that we've seen a handful of murders done with handguns and pump action shotguns it seems, to me at least, the concept of the "assault weapon" is fading. Banning shotguns will not go over well, and finally people are discussing things that will actually stop murders such as armed guards at schools.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
most of the murders are committed in areas which have harsh gun laws. like Chicago for example. Oh and don't forget LA.
Also VERY IMPORTANT point. If you are legally able to buy/own a firearm (AK, AR, BB gun, Shotgun, Pistol, etc). You are 100% legally able to build yourself one or 100 of them.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q...
Does an individual need a license to make a firearm for personal use?
No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use. However, a license is required to manufacture firearms for sale or distribution. The law prohibits a person from assembling a non–sporting semiautomatic rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as well as firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or x–ray machines. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF.
[18 U.S.C. 922(o), (p) and (r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]
The Obama era ATF tried to add ITAR/Non-Sporting BS to home built guns as a back door prohibition/ban.
ATF FAQs
Does an individual need a license to make a firearm for personal use?
No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use. However, a license is required to manufacture firearms for sale or distribution. The law prohibits a person from assembling a non–sporting semiautomatic rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as well as firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or x–ray machines. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF.
[18 U.S.C. 922(o), (p) and (r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]
These plastic guns though... how many children can you murder before it breaks?
Then bring more than one.
These plastic guns are small, light, and cost very little. It shouldn't be that difficult to carry multiple plastic guns.
That's the important bit. I mean, if you're a psychopath that has to surround yourself with guns to feel safe, who knows what could set you off, so you really need that information while you're relatively rational.
Rational adults need to realize very soon that gun control laws of any kind will not keep children safe. What keeps children safe are armed rational adults.
Irrational law: Felons are barred from owning a firearm.
Rational law: Those that cannot be trusted to possess a firearm need to be confined to prison or a mental health facility.
Irrational law: Parents are barred from being armed while picking up their children from school.
Rational law: Weapons are to be on the parents in a proper holster, not left in a vehicle or at home.
I'll see armed men driving armored trucks to bring cash to an ATM. We'll also have our children in buses driven by unarmed drivers and maybe with an unarmed "security officer" on the bus. We're fine with guarding money with lethal force but not our children? That's a fucked up world we live in.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Oh good, if America is so well protected we should be able to redirect the billions in defense spending to more productive use.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
"Wild hyperbole like that is why fewer and fewer people take the Left seriously about anything any more."
Keep thinking that please. Trump has just named a supreme court justice who is likely to help role back abortion and gay marriage which are two issues a current and growing majority of Americans support. American conservatives are currently on the winning end of losing fights just like they once were with slavery and civil rights.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Hmm, so my .30-06 single shot is an "assault rifle"? Because it can put a bullet downrange with the same sort of muzzle speed as an AR-15, and it will make a MUCH bigger hole than an AR-15 does.
Or my Lee Enfield. Yeah, it can be handloaded to the same sort of muzzle speeds as an AR-15. 100 year-old rifle, but an Assault Rifle! Way cool!
Note, by the by, that an AK-47 (or the semi-auto civilian version) does NOT have a terribly high muzzle speed. More like a .30-30 than a .30-06.
Note also that your definition of an Assault Rifle is based on absolutely no knowledge of the subject. Assault rifles were developed and used by the military because they allow soldiers to carry more ammo. Smaller ammo means easier to carry lots and lots of bullets. And a wounded soldier is generally just as out of it as a dead one....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Lets put it this way, if you went nuts, which would you choose if you wanted to put a lot of holes in a crowd of people at fairly close range?
The bolt action is absolutely the correct choice for a single target at 100 yards.
The "invaders" will be those brainwashed by Russian PR. They are already here and coincidentally, they are gun owners. Putin knows there will never be a Red Dawn, to many guns. So in true KGB style he is using our own strength against us by turning it to his desires. #MAGA
To be fair, he was featured in a San Diego Padres shirt, so we should look into banning baseball bats. Anyway, again, well done!
Actually a wounded soldier is more out of it than a dead one, because he'll tie up his buddies who are helping him, and tie up medical resources, etc, and the associated logistics.
In actual combat, most rounds are expended just keeping the other guys' heads down.
-- Alastair
If somebody was going to invade the US, the people having an AR15 are going to do jack shit against it. If only because of the number of tank, jet fighter/bomber, drone and other military material, then a similarly composed army would need to take over the US. You think you could with the AR15 fight agaisnt that ? nope. Best you could do is the partisan fighting, IED, and ambush or lightly armored/lightly protected target. And hope the other guy don't have high caliber or precise weapon. And hope there is no swift retribution with a drone run on the local house from which the attack started , because by that point any civilian attacking an enemy with weapon would immediately qualify as armed force, and their house armed force headquarter with potentially "collateral damage" like the US army name them. Your fantasy of resisting a modern army with AR15 is just that. Look how well the latest conflict the locals resisted with their IED and AK47.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The US has the distinct disadvantage it is very very wide. Sure , on the surface, one could believe it means a lot more army would be needed to invade, but the reality is that it means only a few soft target would be needed to cripple the US : if you target refinery, fuel depot, and energy infrastructure you cripple the US because of the distance it needs to travel. So your AR15 guys would face the problem they may have as many ar15 as they want, but they would be quickly isolated unable to travel far as an invading army would lock down fuel supply/energy supply. After a week or two the civilian would be unable to travel far , by fact that the US all places are far from each other. So basically you would be screwed.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
>"What then is inherently military?"
Remember their statement:
"The government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber -- including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms -- are not inherently military."
They just defined it, in reverse. It would be all automatic firearms, and firearms over .50 caliber. ANY firearm can or may be used by the military, but the previous sentence define those that are inherently military.
Your followup statements are out of bounds, since their definition only regards firearms. Nuclear bombs, tanks, etc, are not "firearms".
you are missing the bigger picture. the government acknowledged that the AR-15 is NOT a military weapon. this blows up the narrative that the "ban assault weapons" crowd is using
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Trump has just named a supreme court justice who is likely to help role back abortion and gay marriage which are two issues a current and growing majority of Americans support.
And if the Democrats had not spent 100 years undermining federalism and states rights, this would not be a problem. Of course the Republicans helped also; federalism is only good when the other party is in power.