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.
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/
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Democracy is literally, Majority Rule, or the idea of power vested in the people to at least directly or indirectly through a system of representation.
There is no such thing as "indirect" democracy. There is representative democracy, which is what nearly every "democratic" country has, and there is regular democracy, where the plebiscite votes on everything directly.
Democracy is great, if you have around 100 people. Getting 300,000,000 people to rationally debate nuanced and complicated issues of law - I'll take our crappy representative democracy any day.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
"Those of us that think they know everything really piss of those of us that actually do."
You don't say!
US is NOT a democracy of any kind. We have several anti-Democracy controls in place "specifically there to prevent Democracy".
Seriously, are you folks so ignorant that you won't even take the time to pick up a book on history and read what the founders of our nation wrote? Several efforts were take to specifically prevent America from being a Democracy of any kind. It is 'literally' in the history books, the Constitution, and in the writings of the very founders. It is amazing that some many people can possess this level of ignorant in the "information age".
More like "misinformation age".
Yea... your pissed off all right... that you think you actually know anything at all!
And since you posted a link to a load of ignorance, let me give you a link to a little enlightenment.
http://libertyunderfire.org/20...
http://thecrux.com/what-the-fo...
---
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
John Adams
---
Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.
James Madison
---
And my personal favorite by a person that is not even an American
---
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill
---
And Churchill was talking about you AND every other person that calls America a Democracy.
so yea... those of you whom think you know everything...
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.
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.
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!
The US is a democracy. There are multiple variations of democracy, and the definitions are broad enough for the US to fall under the umbrella. From what I can tell, it all comes down to what specific set of rules you are restricting the term to. If you want to restrict it to a set that it no longer applies to the US, that's all well and good. That's your choice. If someone else wants to use a more broad definition, that is their choice. Both would be equally valid, just not useful when you're not using the same definition in an argument. If you're going to tell someone their wrong for using a term, maybe you should have a better understanding of how varied a definition that term truly holds.
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.
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.
Well, you're partially right.
There are no real TRUE 100% plastic guns really, I think the guy made ONE that was about 99% plastic, but he still had to have some metal for a firing pin.
You're right that a gun made mostly out of plastic is useless, BUT....here what is happening.
Let's take an AR 15 for instance. For this gun, the ATF ONLY considers the lower receiver, the part usually that is serialized, to be the weapon. For a commercial one sold ready to go, it has to be serialized and you have to buy from FFL and do the paperwork.
But, all the other components, the upper receiver, the barrel, the bolt, the trigger, and all the other moving parts, are not considered the weapon and can be freely bought without any paper work or trace..
What people are doing, is 3D printing the lower receiver....with no serial number and buying all the rest of the parts to build an AR.
It still isn't going to generally last all that long, but it will be functional for awhile.
People have been able to CNC and mill their own receivers out of metal, and it is perfectly legal....for personal use and no selling.
In fact there has been an industry spring up past years, of the 80% lower....which is almost a fully fashioned commercial metal lower receiver.
This is sold with jigs to use with drills and other home tools, to finish out the milling, and from there you can also build a nicely working AR, just add the other parts as described above. You don't have to register it, or serialize it.
I believe the 1911 handgun is easy to do, and they sell lower polymer kits for you to build your own block in this fashion.
Only recently has the state of CA started passing laws for citizens to have to register and serialize these type of things after you build them, but that's about the only place.
Anyway, it has been long settle law that you can build your own guns, as long as they aren't fully automatic. If prescient holds, along with the 1st amendment argument, this should pass.
I"m imagining when metal 3D "printing" becomes more economical and common, then, fully metal guns can be readily printed, but that's not in the near future that I can see at this time.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.