Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man With 3-D-Printed Gun Had Hit List of Lawmakers, US Says (nytimes.com)

Posted by msmash on from the breaking-news dept.

A Dallas man was sentenced to eight years in prison on Wednesday after the authorities caught him with a partially 3-D-printed rifle and what federal prosecutors described as a hit list of lawmakers in his backpack. From a report: The man, Eric Gerard McGinnis, had been under a court order that prohibited him from possessing a firearm when he was discovered to have had the partially printed AR-15-style rifle in July 2017, according to a statement from the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas. Mr. McGinnis, 43, was charged with possession of an unregistered firearm and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person, prosecutors said. A jury later convicted him on both counts.

Prosecutors said in their statement that police officers had arrested Mr. McGinnis after hearing three shots he had apparently fired in a wooded area just outside of Dallas. They also discovered a list in his backpack labeled "9/11/2001 list of American Terrorists." The list included the office and home addresses of "several federal lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican," the statement said. Prosecutors did not reveal the names on Mr. McGinnis's list, but at the sentencing hearing on Wednesday they disclosed that a forensic analysis of his electronic devices suggested that Mr. McGinnis "had a strong interest" in James T. Hodgkinson, the man who the authorities say shot and wounded Representative Steve Scalise and several others at a congressional baseball practice in June 2017.

29 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. Alleged? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> James T. Hodgkinson, the man who the authorities say shot and wounded Representative Steve Scalise

    I didn't realize there was any doubt about this.

    1. Re:Alleged? by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Informative
      While I"m glad they got this fella...sounds like the unhinged type that should not have a firearm....

      I"m a bit puzzled about the charge they convicted him of..."unregistered firearm".

      I thought this was TX, and I don't believe you have to 'register' your firearms there, right?

      Also, as the law stands federally and in most states, you can make your own firearms, and as long as they are not NFA items (short barreled shotgun, short barreled rifle, etc)....you do NOT have to serialize them, or register them or tell any government entity that you have built and own this weapon.

      And for more firearms, like the AR platform...the only normally serialized part of the gun is the lower receiver....which you can 3D print, somewhat these days.

      Anyway, with that in mind, I'm curious of the law they convicted him of on that front.

      Now, as I understand it, he's not allowed legally to posses any firearm, and that's cool.....but I hope they didn't bend a law that's not applicable to convict him, that presents a dangerous precedent.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:Alleged? by dwillden · · Score: 2

      Agreed. My thoughts exactly. It's a home made weapon, it doesn't have to be registered unless he wants to sell it. It doesn't have to have a serial. And as the Lower receiver of an AR doesn't take all that much stress a 3-d printed one is fully capable. It won't last as long but all that will happen is it will develop cracks or deform to where it won't connect to the buffer-tube or the upper receiver. The only way that weapon would have needed a registration is if it was an NFA class of weapon. That could mean fully automatic, a short barreled rifle or with other modifications that make it an Any Other Weapon requiring an NFA stamp.

      Now they also mention being a prohibited person, so that's a serious felony there. If he's prohibited (a convicted felon) then he can't have any firearms.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    3. Re:Alleged? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From TFA:

      "The man, Eric Gerard McGinnis, had been under a court order that prohibited him from possessing a firearm when he was discovered to have had the partially printed AR-15-style rifle in July 2017"

      I know it's tradition and all, but it was in the second paragraph and would have taken you less time to read than it did to type out that long answer.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re: Alleged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wait... are you saying MAGA hat wearers are automatically considered guilty regardless of evidence, or are you saying MAGA hat wearers automatically consider others guilty regardless of evidence?

      The former... At least in the press. Don't believe me? Google Covington and look at the news coverage. Those kids where literally just standing there with MAGA hats on, didn't do anything wrong and got raked over the coals in the press on the testimony of the actual aggressor, even after the full story came out. I hear they are planning to sue multiple people and media outlets over defamation and I hope they win.

    5. Re:Alleged? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Interesting, a post that is basically quoting TFA to present some factual information is considered trolling... Because it's a thread about gun rights and it suggests that there isn't actually a conspiracy to manufacture fake charges against a gun owner.

      Some people have really lost the plot, and the argument due to their need to suppress any information that contradicts their narrative.

      Either that or the last sentence triggered a particularly sensitive snowflake.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Alleged? by Shaitan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Which makes it even more interesting that there was no problem with releasing his name for everyone to know, but the list of politicians on the hitlist was not revealed."

      If he is over 18 it is a matter of public record but accusations of crimes really shouldn't be. It allows for exactly what you see here trial in the court of public opinion and the destruction of careers over charges which are ultimately dismissed or for which parties are found not guilty.

    7. Re: Alleged? by greythax · · Score: 2

      Someone has been watching law & order while they eat their pudding. As a matter of fact, unsurprisingly, there is no constitutional guarantee to a phone call. Further, not all states have any laws regarding them. In most jurisdictions whether you get a phone call is completely left to the discretion of the police. The reason for this should seem obvious, is you could call someone and warn them that the police are onto them.

      Additionally, due to a supreme Court ruling, you are only granted access to a lawyer after judicial proceedings have been initiated against you. Not at the time of arrest.

      Just for the record, I'm not saying I'm for or against the idea of public arrest notices. I think a good case could be made that they are not serving the purpose for which they are intended.

      But when somebody pops in and snidely tries to play off some TV tropes as if they are law, I think people deserve to know the facts.

    8. Re:Alleged? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually there is another post further down, which I also replied to, that also quotes TFA to make the same point and which was also modded "troll".

      It really does appear to be the gun toting snowflakes, a very strange bunch to be sure. That and I've got a mod stalker who systematically mods everything I post as troll until they run out of points, even random jokes about Amazon and the like...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. 3d printer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I suspect this was a machined lower - possibly using a ghost-gunner.

    CNC machines, while computer-controlled and similar in utility, are not really 3d printers. A 3d printer is generally an "additive manufacturing" device, whereas a CNC machine is subtractive.

    1. Re:3d printer? by burtosis · · Score: 2

      Yep. After reading the headline I thought "well good, with a fully 3-D printed gun the only person he could shoot is himself". But a machined/printed lower and actual functional gun parts makes for a useable weapon.

    2. Re:3d printer? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      I don't own an AR-15, but I was under the impression that the lower receiver was actually a component that doesn't require much in terms of dealing with stresses - it's essentially the AR-15's control panel, with the actual work done by the upper receiver and barrel.

      If my understanding is correct (and it might not be), then the lower receiver can easily be made using a 3D printer.

      If it can, then this blows a hole in the way AR-15s are currently regulated. The ATF has to decide at some point whether something constitutes a firearm or not, and right now has a rule that the AR-15's lower receiver is the firearm. It's this component that, for example, cannot be mailed directly to from a seller to an unlicensed buyer across state lines, and requires buyers undergo a NICS "background check".

      Every other part of an AR-15, which is a modular rifle, can be, and there's no NICS test needed to buy the other components of an AR-15.

      So, in theory, unless the ATF changes its mind about what constitutes an AR-15, it's now relatively easy to obtain an AR-15 without any kind of check, not even the shitty "Not really a background check but it was the best we could do" NICS thing.

      And I have no idea if the ATF can change its mind about this anyway.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  3. Unregistered Rifle? by oic0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Texas has no gun registration laws and it's not illegal to manufacture your own gun or gun parts...

    1. Re:Unregistered Rifle? by Oh+really+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True on Texas law, that's the way it should be! The sticking point here is reportedly he was already a prohibited person, so his possession of any firearm is illegal.

    2. Re: Unregistered Rifle? by technothrasher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They meant 'unlawful possession of a firearm'. But Hollywood teaches anybody who doesn't know gun laws that all guns have to be registered with 'the government' and it's made it into wide spread popular belief.

    3. Re:Unregistered Rifle? by Holi · · Score: 2

      Not if you make it and don't transfer it.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    4. Re:Unregistered Rifle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are mistaken.

      https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/does-individual-need-license-make-firearm-personal-use
      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]

      https://www.google.com/search?q=laws+on+making+your+own+firearms&oq=laws+on+making+your+own+firearms&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.6230j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
      In the US, under Federal law, it is legal to make a firearm for your own use. It has to be a firearm that is not regulated under NFA. This means it can't be fully automatic, a short barrel shotgun, a short barrel rifle, or a disguised gun of some sort.

    5. Re:Unregistered Rifle? by Holi · · Score: 2

      http://www.gunsholstersandgear...

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    6. Re: Unregistered Rifle? by dwillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is not illegal to manufacture a firearm without a Serial. If you want to transfer that weapon to anyone else then it requires a serial. But you do not have to serialize any firearm you make for your own use. Also the Federal Law does not specify how it is to be serialized so many will just engrave random numbers on a weapon if they do decide to sell or transfer it.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    7. Re:Unregistered Rifle? by dwillden · · Score: 2

      A drill press will do. Heck if you are careful a Drill will do. Most 80% lowers come with the mill bit that will fit in any standard drill chuck. Drill press is best for stability and ensuring you only mill out what needs to be milled. A CNC machine is not required.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    8. Re:Unregistered Rifle? by PKI+Champion · · Score: 2

      The 3D printing thing is just for show, because the current gun control agenda is targeting 3D printing. The actual charge regarding unregistered rifle as I understand it was that he was found in possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle (SBR). This is a violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

    9. Re: Unregistered Rifle? by Woldscum · · Score: 2

      100% WRONG and Fake News. If you can legally own it. You can build it. You can make as many firearms as you like so long they are for your personal use and not for sale. ZERO markings are required from the ATF. A simple Google search will tell you that you are full of BS.

      https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q...

    10. Re:Unregistered Rifle? by chiefcrash · · Score: 2

      Bingo: according to another article, he was convicted of possession of an unregistered SBR...

      https://www.justice.gov/usao-n...

      --
      Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
    11. Re: Unregistered Rifle? by chiefcrash · · Score: 4, Informative

      In this particular case, the problem was that it was an unregistered short barreled rifle

      Registration of those *is* required, even in Texas...

      --
      Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
    12. Re: Unregistered Rifle? by chiefcrash · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A short barreled rifle, as the name might suggest, is a rifle with a short barrel. To be more specific, it is a shoulder-fired, rifled firearm, made from a rifle, with a barrel length of less than 16 in (41 cm) or overall length of less than 26 in (66 cm), or a handgun fitted with a buttstock and a barrel of less than 16 inches length.

      Much like sawed-off shotguns or machine guns, these sorts of firearms have extra regulations attached to their legal ownership: you must pay a $200 tax, pass an expanded background check, seek local law enforcement approval, etc...

      As for why it matters enough to slap a bunch of extra restrictions on it.... your guess is as good as mine. Best theory is in the 1930s it was thought that rifles and shotguns were being sawed off by criminals for easy concealment for their use. Whether this was a response to real crime or just crime shown in the movies is open to argument. Oddly, the Supreme Court ruled that such short-barreled rifles weren't constitutionally protected due to them lacking a military usefulness.... (oddly, it is now the "military style" guns being targeted for extra restrictions...)

      --
      Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
  4. Re:Prior convictions by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

    Specifically "Texas Penal Code Section 46.05 requires that "explosive weapons", "machine guns", "short-barrel firearms", and "firearm silencers", as defined in Section 46.01, be "registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice". Prior to May 22nd 2015, Section 46.05 called "registration pursuant to the National Firearms Act" a "defense to prosecution".

    That's what I was referring to in my original comment with regard to NFA (National Firearms Act).

    That's a federal thing, not a state thing, however....if you have NFA items, you have to register them with the Feds and pay a $200 tax stamp.

    Most states don't do anything on top of that, but there are a few of the less than 'free' states that ban NFA items outright, but TX isn't one of them.

    Anyway, more and more I"m thinking either the article or the summary here misstated what he was convicted of with respect to the 'unregistered firearm'.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  5. Re:3Dumb by PPH · · Score: 2

    "The Jackel" where the antagonist cuts up a chopping block to make a nylon zip gun

    I missed that one. I've seen Day of the Jackal and The Jackal. Neither of which involved a zip gun. In The Line of Fire (Eastwood/Malkovich) featured a non-metallic, custom made double barreled derringer.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  6. Re:Contradictions and coincindences, typical FF or by wafflemonger · · Score: 2

    He would have printed more, but the cyan cartridge ran out and the printer wouldn't print the rest of the gun.

  7. Re:A better subject line by Shaitan · · Score: 2

    A better headline would have been:

    "Today a man was imprisoned in Texas for the unlawful possession of an unregistered NFA firearm along with a list of potential targets which included lawmakers."

    The 3D printed component isn't particularly notable.