Slashdot Mirror
Judge Blocks Release of Blueprints For 3D-Printed Guns (nbcnews.com)
U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik issued a temporary restraining order Tuesday to stop the release of blueprints to make untraceable and undetectable 3D-printed plastic guns, saying they could end up in the wrong hands. Defense Distributed reached a settlement with the federal government in late June allowing them to freely publish the 3D files. NBC News reports: "There is a possibility of irreparable harm because of the way these guns can be made," he said. Congressional Democrats have urged President Donald Trump to reverse the decision to let Defense Distributed publish the plans. Trump said Tuesday that he's "looking into" the idea, saying making 3D plastic guns available to the public "doesn't seem to make much sense!" Eight Democratic attorneys general had filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to block the federal government's settlement with Defense Distributed. They also sought the restraining order, arguing the 3D guns would be a safety risk. Earlier today, Senate Democrats introduced two bills addressing 3D-printed guns. The first bill would make it illegal to publish 3D-printed gun blueprints. The second bill would require weapons to include at least one metal component with a serial number to make them traceable. Downloads of the 3D-printed gun blueprints have been suspended until Cody Wilson [the owner of Defense Distributed] reviews Lasnik's order. It is unclear how many times the blueprints were downloaded, but some news outlets say the online manuals have been downloaded thousands of times and posted elsewhere online.
Hasn't this stuff been on Bittorrent for years? That's like trying to put a genie back in a bottle. If you don't want to see it, don't search for it on a Bittorrent search engine named after a harbor for rogue sailors. Also, it's not as if diagrams of firearms aren't in every encyclopedia and "How Things Work" book. Might need to ban libraries and machine tools too. I don't personally care for guns, but this order is a bit of a silly joke.
This bullshit about judges being allowed to hand down injunctions without being able to cite a specific statute or the constitution needs to be stopped forcefully by constitutional amendment and statutory changes.
Is it dangerous? I don't know, but I do know that your sorry ass isn't one of the people's representatives in Congress. Go fuck yourself, even if you are 100% right about the danger. Your opinion, as a judge, is irrelevant. You're not a fucking legislator.
Lefties, you want to squawk about "threats to democracy?" Activist judges that behave like this are that and more.
Which if you ask me kind of lets the cat out of the bag on the NRA's purpose. They're not a gun rights lobby, they're a gun manufacturers lobby. And I don't see them taking kindly to the prospect of just anyone being able to manufacture their own firearms. Yeah, yeah, I know, you can barely shoot 5 rounds before it's ready for the junk heap. But give it 20 years and we'll see. And industry lobbies definitely think long term.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Let's ban sharp plastic objects, because bad people can use them to do bad things!
If judges really want to do ban something dangerous they should ban the publication of information about re: CRISPR. It's more likely that someone will create a homegrown virus via CRISPR than kill lots of people with plastic guns.
Can machine-age law be applied fairly to rapidly developing technology? Is [printing a gun] the same as [manufacturing] it? Is he being strung out in a Kafkaesque nightmare as a warning to others? Some [government] officials concede that it's too late to keep [it] from spreading and say that intimidating distributors is the only way they can hope to deter code makers.
Those words were written in US News and World Report more than 23 years ago about the investigation into Phil Zimmerman for having given away PGP. Here is the real text (with the original words I changed in bold):
Can machine-age law be applied fairly to rapidly developing technology? Is putting software on a computer the same as exporting it? Is he being strung out in a Kafkaesque nightmare as a warning to others? Some intelligence officials concede that it's too late to keep cryptography from spreading and say that intimidating distributors is the only way they can hope to deter code makers.
I only had to change 8 words to make it a nearly perfect fit for the situation today.
I know it is fashionable to hate guns here, but the reality is that lots of bad people have guns and have a complete disregard for the law. So, ridiculous laws (we have plenty, just look at Washington DC and California) only serve to ensure that law abiding citizens cannot get guns. It is the same as it was for cryptography. Criminals were getting it and using anyway, only people who respect the law were actually harmed by the law.
As far as guns go, there are plenty of people who legitimately fear for their lives because of abusive relationships, living in bad neighborhoods, and countless other reasons. They need to be able to protect themselves because the police so often cannot or will not. There are lots of problems to fix, but more laws will not do the job when we so often fail to enforce the laws that we have now.
At what point does Congress clean house? What law exactly was violated?
Replace "guns" with whatever you choose in the statement "There is a possibility of irreparable harm because of the way these guns can be made" and it ends up being true, such as alcohol, cars...you name it.
A federal court has issued a prior restraint on speech (it’s attempting to block the spread of information; it is not blocking the lawful home manufacture of firearms) that is already thoroughly and completely moot. The files are out. They’re all over the internet. They’ve been copied and reproduced. The judge’s order can’t change that fact.
Moreover, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation are hardly the only sources for online files or blueprints that enable a home manufacturer with a 3D printer to make a gun. I’m honestly unclear what the court is trying to accomplish here, aside from targeting the Trump administration and/or targeting a disfavored private company.
https://www.nationalreview.com...
NB: Any gun that would be undetectable by a metal detector would be illegal under the aptly named Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.
Until they find out what can be done with powdered coffee creamer. Tip: the ignition of flour suspended in air looks tame in comparison.
This is an BIG 1ST and 2ST amendments issue.
> If the blueprints are already easy to create and readily available why doesn't everyone 3D print guns yet
I posted the instructions here on Slashdot two days ago. Why didn't you build one?
Here are some reasons I don't build one for use with regular, lethal ammunition:
The ones I can buy are much better than what I'd build. Same reason I don't build a toaster, or a bicycle.
It's safer not to.
Some cops might not know it's legal, so I could go to jail until my lawyer handles it.
As for "would require weapons to include at least one metal component", that's already existing federal law. Passing the same law again is theater for the uninformed.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
(p)
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearmâ"
(A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar; or
(B) any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.
If the blueprints are already easy to create and readily available why doesn't everyone 3D print guns yet, this order protects that from happening.
And what, exactly, is being protected here?
There is really no justification for this court order, on several levels.
It's a violation of the 1st and 2nd amendments on its face. It's also unenforceable, and it ignores the abundant precedent of gun-making instructions and kits that have been on sale since forever. It also ignores the results of the previous attempts to ban information: the export laws against cryptography.
It also goes against existing federal law that says it's legal to make firearms for personal use.
Even if you think it's a new type of situation not covered by the 1st and 2nd amendments, it's a violation of the 10th amendment which says that rights not covered are held by the states and/or the people.
It's clear that as soon as people accept that the government can ban information in this one "very important" issue, they'll be ratcheting it up for the next "only slightly less" important issue, and the whole thing will lead to a labyrinthine set of rules and laws banning various selected topics using different metrics.
The only reason this is happening in the first place is because the anti-2nd amendment crowd see it as a new and unexplored way to try to curtail our rights.
This is really a stupid move, and the only result will be that someone has to burn money, time, and effort proving what is plainly obvious.
or Why the Judge Is Wrong and Abusing His Position While Being So.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Anyone with the use of their hands and a few tools from the local hardware store can make a "zip gun" from scrap metal. It doesn't take a genius to make such a gun, which will be just as effective as what comes out of a 3D printer. This is a well known and common criminal practice, for many years now. Sure, it's illegal but it happens all the time.
But now we have a new way to make a "zip gun": Instead of a few bucks worth of hand tools and some scrap we need a computer and a 3D printer, which costs a LOT more! And usually the sort of people who have such equipment probably have something better to do than making stupid 3D printed zip guns.
But this is so terribly scary that the media has to freak out and the gummint has to ban it. Lots of money, time and effort wasted over this non-problem. But the media and the politicians all have to keep us scared or we might start thinking for ourselves and they can't have that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Author Harlan Ellison describes the zip guns gangs used in 1950s New York City as being made from tubing used in coffee percolators or automobile radio antennas, strapped to a block of wood for a handle. A rubber band powered the firing pin, which the shooter pulls back and releases to fire."
Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
> sounds quite reasonable. Surely a metal barrel or firing pin would fare better than a plastic one, right?
That's already existing federal law. It's called the Undetectable Firearms Act. Passing the same law again is theater for the uninformed.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
(p)
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm
(A) that, after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines, is not as detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated and operated to detect the Security Exemplar; or
(B) any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.
> can't guess how the Republicans will feel about it. On the one hand "omg gubernment's tryin a take mah gunz"
I vote Republican (#nevertrump). Perhaps now that you see the "one metal part" thing has already been law for several years, you might be able to better guess how I feel about it. Most gun laws proposed by the left are jokes, silly theater pandering for those in their base who know nothing about guns, because they are scared of them. The "assault weapons" ban is a good example. Guess what an "assault weapon" is, how it's defined under the law? An assault weapon is legally defined as a rifle that looks scary. Seriously, it's based on mostly cosmetic features of the firearm. So I laugh and shake my head.
There is a trick the politician is trying to play with this bill, though. He says it requires "one metal part - because metal detectors". But we know that's ALREADY law, so we know he's full of shit there. Let's look more closely at the bill. Ah, "one metal part with a registered serial number". This shyster is trying to pass a national gun registration law, while pretending that it has something to do with metal detectors, but we caught him on his bullshit. We know one metal part is already required, he's just trying to create national gun registration while lying about it.
As a general rule, I oppose lying bastards passing laws doing one thing while pretending they are doing something different. If you can't even tell us honestly what you're proposing, my assumption is that I shouldn't support your bullshit lies. Also, history has shown us over and over again, in many countries, that registration is always followed by confiscation. The only reason the government ever wants a list of who all has guns is so they can later come and take them. That pattern has played out too many times to fall for it AGAIN.
Thereâ(TM)s really no stopping this at this juncture.
According to FOSSCAD's github they've been publishing materials for 5 years. I'd say Cody is quite correct regarding the harassment, he's being targeted. FOSSCAD makes 3D printable firearms which is available online without restriction.
If they actually want to ban something meaningful, they shouldn't be going after plastic guns. They'd need to go after CNC metal gun parts. Those are just as untraceable, maybe moreso, and they're actually useful.
Since they aren't doing that, they're just trying to look like they're doing something. They aren't.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think the logic they are using is that gun manufacturers similar to "big tobacco". The idea is that "big gun" is tricking people into buying guns. 3D printed guns will take revenue away from "big gun". The thing is that there has been a long tradition of making and customizing firearms. People have made a business of tricking out guns (trigger jobs, patterns, etc).
Making a gun at home has been fairly easy without a 3D printer and the results are MUCH better than a printer can produce. Will metal sintering become cheap enough and good enough to make a gun that is as good what Armalite or a Winchester can do? We'll see. By that time gun manufactures won't be the only ones impacted. The revolution would be way bigger than just guns.
He should change his name to Malarkey if he thinks these are downloadable guns, or that anyone has devised a plastic AR-15. That quote is so ignorant that he should recuse himself from any votes relating to firearms.
http://www.andrewkaram.com/pdf...
United States v Progressive, Inc. already handled this, with the United States settling and dropping its case, and The Progressive publishing how to make a thermonuclear weapon in WIDESPREAD PRINT November 1979.
All assholes in office need to realize we've got prior case precedent against this prior restraint. Then they need to go the fuck back to school.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I feel like anyone who is afraid of "3D-printed guns" has never: (1) used a 3D printer; (2) shot a firearm. Regulating things without understanding them has always been the hip thing to do, but this is silly, because it will never be prevented through regulation.
Knives bought at any store that sells knives occasionally end up in the wrong hands, too.
Is there any recognized exception to the first amendment that allows the government to prohibit the distribution of accurate information on the grounds that it's dangerous to use or misuse? If not, and they're asking for a new exception to the first amendment, the minimum we should expect is a precise description of the contours of the exception.
Whats next on the ban list?
Books?
Software?
Math?
Crypto?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
a bit more gun regulation it's anything but fashionable to hate guns on /.. Nerds love guns. I'm not going to waste time arguing whybut believe you me, /.ers love their guns.
On a side note, there's plenty of people who legitimately fear for their lives, can't or won't handle a gun (or don't want one in the house with their children) but would like very much to keep their abusive ex spouses away from guns. Several of them get killed every year because it's damn near impossible to keep (perfectly legal) guns away from them. Meanwhile an angry, usually testosterone filled man (though occasionally crazy woman) spends the rest of their lives in jail because it's so quick and easy to made a life changing mistake.
I'm just saying we could do with a bit more regulation.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Didn't the horse already bolt five years ago? I seem to remember New South Wales police posting videos on YouTube showing how easily 3D printed guns from Defense Distributed blew up, https://www.smh.com.au/technol...
As an encore they plan to legislate pi is equal to 3.000. Yeah, it's been tried before; but, THIS time we'll get it right!
{O,o} Ack! Plblbpt!
Its already legal to make guns in the US without a license as far as I can tell, you only need licenses if you are selling or distributing guns or are making things that are restricted such as full-auto guns.
Its also legal to post instructions online on how to make your own gun (again as long as they aren't for making things that are restricted).
Why is a 3d printed gun any more of a big deal than any of the other ways you can build your own gun? What makes a 3d printed gun any different to, say, buying an AR-15 80% lower and an AR-15 parts kit and building an AR-15 in the back shed or garage? (or criminal gang hideout for that matter).
I've owned a 3d printer for a while. Printing complex mechanisms is not particularly difficult, but it is certainly non-trivial for a novice user. Couple this with the fact that anyone with a drill press and a touch of nous can make a gun, I fail to see what all the fuss is about when related to the 3d printer side of things. People have had the tools and ability to build their own guns for years.
Precedent exists that if useful in a lawful manner it shouldn’t be prohibited. I can use the design files and a 3D printer creating metal components to craft the firearm in metal.
The judge is ruling the government incompetent after the state department took years to reach this ruling. The judge cannot legislate from the bench. This ruling overrides the law in force and as determined at length.
The ruling violates the long standing legal precedent of the lawful construction of firearms by individuals. One can make a pistol, rifle, revolver, etc. legally for ones own use. Legislating a tool that facilitates the action of making ones one firearm seems a blatant violation of those rights.
The plastic firearms are already deemed a novelty. They don’t reliable fire even one shot. Yet there exist other methods to achieve the same results. I can form the same firearm design from bulk plastic. And it will be stronger. I can more easily create metal firearms more cheaply that are more reliable. $20 and a trip to a hardware store and I can craft a slam fire shotgun that requires less skill to fabricate.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution clearly says, “...shall not be infringed.” Not it’s a good idea not to, not maybe don’t infringe, not it’s ok to infringe in these circumstance. It says plainly “shall not be infringed.” So the government will have to show an overwhelming reason to infringe.
The case of PGP encryption mirrors the same legal process in it’s ITAR case. The government lost. They will lose this fight too.
The ruling amounts to prior restraint.
Activist judges are defiling our checks and balances by creating law from the bench. Impeachment of the judge is the remedy in all cases.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Yep, because releasing plans for building a nuclear bomb is totally the same thing as releasing plans for something someone can just hit print on their own (or their friend's) $500 printer.
To be clear, it's a stupid ruling in the face of free speech and given the rest of the gun culture, but not quite as stupid as your comparison.
No, we already pay an 11% excise tax on all firearm and ammo purchases. (This money goes to conservation, yet another way that hunters and shooters do far more to conserve wildlife and nature than those that whine about needing to conserve nature) Trying to tax ammunition out of affordability is no more legal than excessive taxes on firearms.
Ammo is a component of the concept Arms that we are entitled to keep and bear. The founding fathers knew this very well. The first shot of the Revolution at Lexington was due to the Brits trying to seize ammo. Specifically the British troops had marched out to seize community stores of Powder and lead. These stores were kept by the communities as your average citizen didn't keep sufficient for a pitched battle on hand. Thus the villages kept a ready store for their militia to use should the militia be needed to fight off native attackers or a foreign power. Or in that case government forces trying to disarm the local militia by taking their ammo reserves.
Ammo is part of the concept of Arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment, as are bladed weapons. The 2nd Amendment doesn't refer just to guns.
And the basic idea behind the Liberator is that it only needs to last for a shot or two. It's modeled after the single shot pistols the allies tried to smuggle into the Jewish Ghettos in Poland. They didn't get enough smuggled in to the ghettos in time to make a difference and allow for effective resistance, but the idea was that the single shot gun would allow one to surprise armed police/soldiers killing them when not expected and taking their combat weapons to be used later. Or to mount a last ditch defense, that single shot may allow the user to escape and survive.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Unless it's about guns, or something.
1: First Amendment. WE WIN! If the Federal government has ruled on 1A protection, they're screwed.
2: On The Internet. WE WIN! Once something's on the Internet, it's pretty much FOREVER. Hell, the original DefCAD stuff has been knocking around since the site was originally taken down.
3: They're essentially trying to ban CAD files and 3D printers. That's just NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
I think it's time to accept that trying to criminalize everything just because criminals could use it for nefarious purposes is about as effective as finding a live circuit by french-kissing a socket.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I'm sorry Pennsylvania, you're SOL. Even if people didn't have a right to make their own guns at home, there's just no way to stop the plans from getting around now.
As for Congress, it can legislate whatever the hell it wants, but it won't change the technological fact. Shutting down Defense Distributed won't make the plans disappear from the internet nor will it prevent anyone else from coming up with their own.
The only possible way to limit 3D printed guns is to control the printers themselves. Some sort of DRM (which will last for all of three days, tops), or licensing and annual inspections (good luck).
do not extend to the internet? Or an e-book you might publish for Kindle? Or a digital sign in front of your house? Interesting.
...these aren't, "plastic guns"
They are merely fancy zip guns. They are as dangerous to the shooter as they are to the target.
The Mythbusters made a "cannon" out of a tree stump. Maybe we need to ban the episode from ever airing again?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Evidently this proposed law would require putting a serial number on that piece of metal, which would be entirely useless without reporting it to the government. It's likely an attempt to require registration of all DIY "ghost" guns. Which is not quite as bad as a universal registration law which would assuredly kick off Civil War 2.0, but is of course a step in that direction.
As for "would require weapons to include at least one metal component", that's already existing federal law. Passing the same law again is theater for
Does the bullet count? Even if you get plastic bullets surely there are metals in some form in the gunpowder.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
"shall not be infringed."
That federal law is unconstitutional.
A well regulated Militia
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Ummm no, new tech does not obsolete the Constitution.
Seriously? Anyone with criminal intent is NOT going to take the time to print a lower first. They aren't even going to buy a printed one. They will buy a complete rifle from some asshat street corner dealer, or some shmuck that thinks just because someone met them in the walmart parking lot, they still have to sell them their rifle despite them being dodgy looking. Except no they won't buy that either. They will get a handgun. The number of crimes involving guns, where a rifle of any type was used is such a small percentage that the FBI doesn't even break it out any further than "rifles".
Real guns are easier to get than this fairy tale. Sure, print yourself a complete Glock clone and watch it fail after 5 shots or pay $50 for a stolen one.
IANAL, but does blocking these violate the 1st and 2nd to the US Constitution?
I'm not saying I want them to be released, but can they actually be blocked in the US?
One wonders if stuff like this could be used to force through changes to the constitution, esp. repealing the 2nd amendment (a good thing IMHO), but also changing the 1st negatively .
Zipguns and the like have been around for ages, and if you felt like it you could already easily build a zipgun that didn't have any ferrous parts that would trigger a metal detector (outside of the bullet itself).
Having a 3d Printer be able to crap out the parts with a click is easier yeah but I don't really see the difference between being able to craft a functional one-shot firearm in an hour or two compared to say most of an afternoon. If you're going to do evil things with it you'll probably plan on it as early as you need to make whatever it is you want. Gonna ban people from knowing basic chemistry too? I believe Bleach and Ammonia purchases are monitored and regulated depending on the country but you're not signing off for them here in the US at least. Gonna try to go around and police scrap metal and leftover nails so people can't make thermite? Require a waiting period before you can buy a pressure cooker?
Also, even if the filaments improve you're still trusting a hunk of plastic to contain rapidly expanding, hot gas. I guess if I was a criminal or a psycho wanting to assassinate someone I wouldn't care but generally you'd like your weapon to work instead of spraying shrapnel into your face.
The People were expected to bring their own firearms when joining the militia.
The cheapest 3d printer I can find (which I'm not 100% sure can even make the appropriate size pieces) is something like $220. That's not counting filament.
Right now, if you don't have a criminal record (or maybe if you do! or know someone who doesn't!) you can go buy a brand new, fresh from the factory Hi-Point C9 9mm handgun for $150 MSRP. Also, the C9 tends to sell for even less than that. You can get a lightly used (or possibly new) C9 from gunbroker for $50.
Hi-Points are cheap pieces of shit compared to their market contemporaries but it:
-Fires a much more deadly round than a 22LR
-Comes with an 8-round (IIRC? 8 or 9 I think) magazine
-Won't explode on a misfire
-Shoots straight, particularly after one round!
The only solid benefit that the Liberator has is that it won't set off a metal detector if you don't use something metal for the firing pin. That's it.
I, for one, welcome the Second Constitutional Republic of America. What faces should we put on our currency?
Agreed!!
Remember, the musket was the " assault weapon " of the day back then....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
That's not very well regulated if you ask me.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Actually, the release wasn't blocked, since Cody had restarted donloads some days earlier. Downloading was re-blocked.
Exactly.
There is a possibility of irreparable harm because of the way these guns can be made
Whoever the mouthbreather was who wrote this, I bet they have no idea how correct they actually are (snicker).
Well-regulated at the time simply meant functioning normally, not the current administrative-state definition in use today. In other words, people were expected to be proficient with their guns.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
Since this request was brought by the States (via their attorneys general, making the States a party to the case), the ONLY court with jurisdiction to issue this injunction is the Supreme Court. This district judge not only got their position on the 1st AND 2nd amendment wrong, they got their own scope of power via article III section 2 wrong...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I thought the assault weapon of the day back then was the Kentucky Long rifle, not those silly smooth bore muskets the British used.
Time to offend someone
A well regulated Militia
functions properly.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
surely there are metals in some form in the gunpowder.
Jesus, you don't even know the basic chemistry of gunpowder?
Methinks you don't have enough knowledge about the subject to really participate in this discussion.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
https://archive.org/details/DE...
Lots of money, time and effort wasted over this non-problem.
Guns in the US are not a "non-problem". They're a very real problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't respond to AC's.
Lasnik's blatant disregard of the first and second amendments disqualifies him to practice law in this country, much less sit on the bench. He should be impeached, removed from office, and disbarred.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I was looking at a video of a guy firing a Gyrojet. I was wondering if eventually the things cvould be 3D printed or mass produced on a CNC mill.
The gun itself would not be much of a problem, but the rounds would be interesting.
surely there are metals in some form in the gunpowder.
Jesus, you don't even know the basic chemistry of gunpowder?
Methinks you don't have enough knowledge about the subject to really participate in this discussion.
Are you proposing that modern gunpowder is metal free? I'm far far far from an expert on gunpowder and there are no doubt multiple formulas in use but if you go to the wiki page (or anywhere else that will tell you a recipe) and scroll down to the smokeless propellant components section you will see a fair few metallic elements not limited to magnesium, tin, lead and titanium. The particular discussion I contributed to was on the technicality that a weapon has to have at least one metal part and I proposed in a plastic gun the bullet counts and if not the gunpowder more than likely includes some amounts of metal. So if you'd like to actually say something about that then then please do, otherwise kindly fuck off.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
A well regulated Militia
functions properly.
So national guard and that? In what way does a bunch of random people function properly? What even is the proper function of a group of randoms? Do you know your role in what happens in the event of an invasion or you decide you've finally had enough with the police or government?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Sure, but the existing law was intended to prohibit firearms that were undetectable by metal detectors. IIRC, it has to have at least four ounces of metal to be legal, leading to makers actually adding a chunk of metal whose sole purpose was weight. The bullet and firing pin just aren't enough.
...As for "would require weapons to include at least one metal component", that's already existing federal law...
And as a matter of fact, the instructions for the Liberator state that:
This is the first DD Liberator release, tested functional on 5/3/2013 and again on 5/5/2013.
How to legally assemble the DD Liberator:
-Print (ONLY) the frame sideways (the shortest dimension is the Z axis). USC18 922(p)(2)(A) states*: "For the purposes of this subsection (The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988) - the term 'firearm' does not include the frame or receiver of any such weapon;"
Thus, you can legally print ONLY the frame entirely in plastic, even without 3.7 ounces of steel.
-Once the frame is finished, epoxy a 1.19x1.19x0.99" block of steel in the 1.2x1.2x1.0" hole in front of the trigger guard. Add the bottom cover over the metal if you don't want it to show.
-Once the epoxy has tried, the steel is no longer removable, and is an integral part of the frame. Now your gun has ~6 ounces of steel and is thus considered a 'detectable' firearm. So now you can print all the other parts...
No sig
Heh. But if written properly, the "1" would be preceded by a suffix uniquely identifying the maker. Something like that seems to be in place for the official FFL manufacturers, although they get uniqueness with make + model + maybe caliber + serial number.
These people would be happy to achieve something like that by requiring 3D printers to uniquely identify their output, something that's already done sub rosa with ink-jet and laser printers.
Printed plastic guns fall under the precisely the same legislation as other guns (depending on their type): Illegal to print and own unless you have a license for the type of gun.
The files on how to make them are perfectly legal.
"The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
Cheap guns people can make in their garage is the nightmare of the gun manufacturing companies.
Watch for the NRA to come out as the biggest opponent of it. They will use some verbal gymnastics to avoid the 2nd Amendment issue and denounce this as an affront to "responsible gun ownership" but really it will be because it threatens their corporate sponsors.
Yawn. They always say that. It never happens, of course, but it doesn't stop them screeching.
"any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the types of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component."
I wonder if there is a place where you can go test your homemade firearm to see if it complies. And if so, could bad guys do that to see what they can pass through the system?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
. . .because the files have been out there for years, and now more people looking for them.
Besides, you don't **need** a 3D Printer to make a firearm. The tools in any decently-equipped home workshop are generally sufficient. A drill-press, a rivet gun, and perhaps a hydraulic press, and you're good (Or spend a few hundred bucks at the local Harbor Freight. . )
There is a case where someone actually built an AK-47-pattern rifle from a SHOVEL.. And there's an entire cottage industry that makes functional firearms entirely using hand tools.. .
The point is, firearms are extremely easy to make by any competent craftsman. The genie has been out of the bottle for CENTURIES. All 3D printers do (or CNC automills) is the gruntwork. . .
You are right. There should probably be broader support for the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) http://thecmp.org/about/ and perhaps, a requirement that all citizens undergo basic firearms training. I think it would go a long way towards diminishing the ugly fascination that has developed around firearms, and further the aims of the 2nd amendment towards the ability to form a "well-regulated militia" from the general population.
Regulations don't supercede the Constitution, otherwise we'd still have Jim Crow laws and forced housing of the mentally ill. The Supreme Court abdicating their own authority is an issue, however...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I thought the assault weapon of the day back then was the Kentucky Long rifle, not those silly smooth bore muskets the British used.
You're both wrong. It was the breech-loading rifle, which had already been invented and which were used by the British. They were relatively difficult to produce, thus expensive, and thus scarce, but no laws prohibited American citizens from owning them, either... nor from fixing a bayonet.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's a creative argument. Normally, the anti-civil rights side uses WMD as 'reductio ad absurdum' example against the position that people have an individual right to bear arms.
Well-regulated at the time simply meant functioning normally, not the current administrative-state definition in use today. In other words, people were expected to be proficient with their guns.
It meant a good deal more than that. It meant that the militia should have a recognizable and functional chain of command, that every member's weapons should be functional and safe for the owner and his fellow militia members in the vicinity to fire, and that the chain of command should be able to establish the required logistics chain to keep the militia fed and clothed and housed and their waste disposed of.
In short, it's not a well regulated militia unless it could do everything an ancient Roman legion could do, but with guns.
I didn't know about that law until just a few days ago, and it seems kind of ridiculous to me. I'm all for preventing people from bringing guns on airplanes or into courthouses, but legislating that current gun technology has to comply with older technology designed to detect them seems like grasping at straws, and completely useless against a determined criminal (they're already planning to break at least one law, so why not another?). What's to prevent that person from replacing the metal part(s) with plastic or ceramic parts to bypass the metal detectors?
you will see a fair few metallic elements not limited to magnesium, tin, lead and titanium.
I count exactly two "metallic elements" in the list of possible smokeless powder components: tin and bismuth. Lead has been banned for environmental reasons. Tin and bismuth are noted as being more likely included as compounds. In any case, no, as you can clearly see in the wiki page for smokeless powers, metal components are not required.
and I proposed in a plastic gun the bullet counts
No, the bullet does not count as part of a gun.
What's to prevent that person from replacing the metal part(s) with plastic or ceramic parts to bypass the metal detectors?
Nothing in any law prevents any criminal from breaking the law. Laws cannot accomplish that magic feat, and thus aren't written to try.
Laws make certain acts illegal, so that if you commit that act and are caught you can be punished. In this case, if someone is caught with a completely plastic or ceramic gun that violates that law, they can be prosecuted for that act, whether or not they intended to use it to rob a bank or hijack an airplane. If they are caught breaking some other law (such as trying to sneak it past TSA), they get the additional charge added to the others. If they are caught before they try to sneak it past TSA, then they can at least be charged with that crime.
A well regulated Militia
is a phrase that appears in a descriptive clause in the 2nd amendment. It describes why one of the inalienable rights was considered important enough to enumerate in the bill of rights. It does not create the right nor does it limit it. The actual active part of the 2nd amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's the right of "the people", not "militia members". Had the founders wanted it to apply only to members of "a well regulated militia", they would have said so.
"To be clear, it's a stupid ruling in the face of free speech and given the rest of the gun culture, but not quite as stupid as your comparison."
Uh, no. See, my comparison is VERY FUCKING SALIENT. The plans for THERMONUCLEAR WEAPONRY was published, and oh look, ain't nobody domestic or foreign has nuked us yet (despite every detail needed excepting a bit of charge shape geometry being provided.)
Learn your prior restraint case law - Near vs Minnesota should be a good fucking starter for you.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
https://www.thepiratebay.org/search/defcad/0/99/0
https://github.com/maduce/fosscad-repo/archive/master.zip
>surely there are metals in some form in the gunpowder.
Surely there isn't. Sulfur, carbon, and potassium nitrate.
The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
The way the people are represented in government is via representation, hence representative democracy, which is what the US has.
The specific form of government the US has is a constitutionally limited republic. You could add federalist in there if you like.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Still waiting on you to admit your ass was wrong. Gonna do that or are you just going to be a typical right-wing fuck and hit and run while I've got identifying info on you to submit to the internet?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Local rock club has a 3d printer that can print casting wax. You coat it, kiln it, then fill the preheated mold with silver or gold to make jewelry.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Make it illegal. That will stop it. Ha.
IIRC, it has to have at least four ounces of metal to be legal
No problem: embed a bunch of coins in the grip. It will look just like a wallet.