What's your plan for when somebody is attacked and injured, and a stranger is trying to help them?
All of a sudden, you've cursed a good samaritan with a highly evolved rock in a life-threatening situation.
Before you pass this off as far-flung chance, quite a few police officers have been saved because of this exact scenario. And some victims they were attempting to help have lived this way after the responding officer was injured or killed.
You willing to bet your liberty in a self-defense case on microcircuitry that is never checked or maintained, a lens that might be obstructed or smeared, and the assumption that if there isn't a perfect picture, you're hiding some kind of guilt?
"Mr. Johnson, how do we know you didn't put your blood all over the end of that gun before your wife used it to murder a poor, helpless transient you two had lured to your home for deviant sex? There's no picture. You must be trying to hide something."
It's banned in a bunch of European countries. One.22 Short cartridge that was found on a doorstep in Britain freaked out the entire township and the bomb squad was called out. I wish I was joking - hit the googles, it'll pull up the article from a few years back.
Re:Which puts the ITAR head-to-head with amendment
on
DoD Descends On DEFCAD
·
· Score: 1
The absolute last thing a federal prosecutor ever wants to see at the other bench is a lawyer from the NRA, the EFF, and the ACLU all sitting next to each other.
Huh? Castings are frequently machined down to finished gun components. Aluminum castings are often used as the starting stages of M-14 and AR-15 receivers.
Please stop using the "fire in a crowded theater" argument. It's dicta from the DISSENTING opinion in a case that has been long since superceded by a much better ruling.
AKA, it was a side remark in a losing argument in a decision that doesn't even matter anymore.
I just has to work. The purpose was to provoke the exact response he got. The feds took the bait, and now the game is on and the whole debate is probably headed to the courts... where the feds will quite likely lose and lose big.
Here's the letter DEFCAD got from the DoS...
on
DoD Descends On DEFCAD
·
· Score: 4, Informative
United States Department of State
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Offense of Defense Trade Controls Compliance
May 08, 2013
In reply letter to DTCC Case: 13-0001444
[Cody Wilson's address redacted]
Dear Mr. Wilson,
The Department of State, Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Enforcement Division (DTCC/END) is responsible for compliance with and civil enforcement of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) (AECA) and the AECA’s implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 C.F.R. Parts 120-130) (ITAR). The AECA and the ITAR impose certain requirements and restrictions on the transfer of, and access to, controlled defense articles and related technical data designated by the United States Munitions List (USML) (22 C.F.R. Part 121).
The DTCC/END is conducting a review of technical data made publicly available by Defense Distributed through its 3D printing website, DEFCAD.org, the majority of which appear to be related to items in Category I of the USML. Defense Distributed may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without the required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.
Technical data regulated under the ITAR refers to information required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of defense articles, including information in the form of blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation. For a complete definition of technical data, see 120.10 of the ITAR. Pursuant to 127.1 of the ITAR, it is unlawful to export any defense article or technical data for which a license or written approval is required without first obtaining the required authorization from the DDTC. Please note that disclosing (including oral or visual disclosure) or tranferring technical data to a foreign person, whether in the United States or abroad, is considered an export under 120.17 of the ITAR.
The Department believes Defense Distributed may not have established the proper jurisdiction of the subject technical data. To resolve this matter officially, we request that Defense Distributed submit Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) determination requests for the following selection of data files available on DEFCAD.org, and any other technical data for which Defense Distributed is unable to determine proper jurisdiction:
DTCC/END requests that Defense Distributed submits its CJ requests within three weeks of the receipt of this letter and notify this office of the final CJ determinations. All CJ requests must be submitted electronically through an online application using the DS-4076 Commodity Jurisdiction Request Form. The form, guidance for submitting CJ requests, and other relevant information such as a copy of the ITAR can be found on DDTC’s website at http://www.pmddtc.state.gov./
Until the Department provides Defense Distributed with the final CJ determinations, Defense Distributed should treat the above technical data as ITAR-controlled. This means that all such data shoudl be removed form public access immediately. Defense Distributed should also review the remainder of the data made public on its website to determine whether any additional data may be similarly controlled and proceed according to ITAR requirements.
Additionally, DTCC/END requests information about the procedures Defense Distributed follows to d
Making, transferring, and selling (distinct from merely transferring) are all regulated by federal statute.
You can make without a license if you register the item and pay the tax. Only a licensed FFL / SOT can sell as part of business activities, and transfers between individuals usually must be conducted through a licensee as well./IANAL, watch yer cornhole
I don't know why the Department of State is bothering, then, because not just blueprints but 3D CAD files for numerous firearms have been in the wild for years. The basic AR-15 design is public domain, M-14 blueprints are available to anybody via FOIA requests, FAL blueprints are all over the world, and you can make an AK-47 with scrap metal, a hammer, and hand files... as evidenced by Pakistani tribes doing just that.
DoS is going to lose and lose badly. Which may have been DEFCAD's plan all along.
What pushes his ideology farther along the path, puttering away in semi-obscurity on his website, or invoking the full speed and fury of the internet's anti-censorship reflexes and spreading these files so far and wide they'll be easily available forever?
That would already be governed in the US by the National Firearms Act, as an AOW (Any Other Weapon). Making one without paying a tax is a 10 year federal felony.
ITAR is one of the most nebulous, subjective, overbroad laws currently on the books.
You would be livid if you saw the full list of some of the ridiculous things that have been slapped with ITAR restrictions. Things like entertainment software (FS Flight Simulator), kids toys (explorer night vision goggles), and hiking equipment (various complex compasses and navigation aids that were allegedly too close to being useful for aiming mortars and artillery).
How many false positives do they get? How many false negatives? The auto-sear for a registered conversion device to make an AR-15 capable of automatic fire is an extremely simple object with one moving part and a spring. I can all but guarantee you that somewhere else, somehow, there is a component of some mechanical device that is nearly identical in shape, layout, and dimension.
That's probably the case for most internal parts of most modern weapons, too. Firearms are dazzlingly simple devices when all is said and done. If we start chaining down society from being able to make anything that might be mistaken for a gun, society is going to become fed up with the entire notion of that stupidity in, oh, five minutes. Long enough to find out they can't print their latest design, doodad, iWhatsit accessory, or critical replacement part for a car engine or medical device.
Even with a very good recognition algorithm that somehow didn't piss people off, all it would do is start a design arms race between black market engineers and the bureaucrats maintaining the blacklist. And that would probably, ultimately, drive a level of small arms innovation the likes of which we haven't seen in more than a century.
Politicians won't be able to ban printers entirely. They would be lynched.
Their only real option is to try and impose some kind of blacklisted geometry detector, which won't work and will get the whole regulatory system torn out and stomped on shortly thereafter.
You show me a computer algorithm that can not only recognize arbitrary 3D geometry but discern purpose and intent of an object without any other context, and I'll show you a Nobel Prize.
Lead is used because it is dense and keeps its shape under 20k + PSI, but still malleable enough to engage the rifling in a barrel. Soft clay will come apart. Dried clay will shatter in the barrel. Glass will probably shatter and obstruct the bore and blow up the gun.
Slashdot Mirror
What's your plan for when somebody is attacked and injured, and a stranger is trying to help them?
All of a sudden, you've cursed a good samaritan with a highly evolved rock in a life-threatening situation.
Before you pass this off as far-flung chance, quite a few police officers have been saved because of this exact scenario. And some victims they were attempting to help have lived this way after the responding officer was injured or killed.
You willing to bet your liberty in a self-defense case on microcircuitry that is never checked or maintained, a lens that might be obstructed or smeared, and the assumption that if there isn't a perfect picture, you're hiding some kind of guilt?
"Mr. Johnson, how do we know you didn't put your blood all over the end of that gun before your wife used it to murder a poor, helpless transient you two had lured to your home for deviant sex? There's no picture. You must be trying to hide something."
Words change over time. Regulated in that era meant "well trained and equipped".
The "well regulated means well bureaucratically controlled" meme died with the Heller decision. Try to catch up from 2008.
It's banned in a bunch of European countries. One .22 Short cartridge that was found on a doorstep in Britain freaked out the entire township and the bomb squad was called out. I wish I was joking - hit the googles, it'll pull up the article from a few years back.
The absolute last thing a federal prosecutor ever wants to see at the other bench is a lawyer from the NRA, the EFF, and the ACLU all sitting next to each other.
And that very well might happen here.
Huh? Castings are frequently machined down to finished gun components. Aluminum castings are often used as the starting stages of M-14 and AR-15 receivers.
Please stop using the "fire in a crowded theater" argument. It's dicta from the DISSENTING opinion in a case that has been long since superceded by a much better ruling.
AKA, it was a side remark in a losing argument in a decision that doesn't even matter anymore.
It doesn't have to work well.
I just has to work. The purpose was to provoke the exact response he got. The feds took the bait, and now the game is on and the whole debate is probably headed to the courts... where the feds will quite likely lose and lose big.
United States Department of State
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Offense of Defense Trade Controls Compliance
May 08, 2013
In reply letter to DTCC Case: 13-0001444
[Cody Wilson's address redacted]
Dear Mr. Wilson,
The Department of State, Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Enforcement Division (DTCC/END) is responsible for compliance with and civil enforcement of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) (AECA) and the AECA’s implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 C.F.R. Parts 120-130) (ITAR). The AECA and the ITAR impose certain requirements and restrictions on the transfer of, and access to, controlled defense articles and related technical data designated by the United States Munitions List (USML) (22 C.F.R. Part 121).
The DTCC/END is conducting a review of technical data made publicly available by Defense Distributed through its 3D printing website, DEFCAD.org, the majority of which appear to be related to items in Category I of the USML. Defense Distributed may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without the required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.
Technical data regulated under the ITAR refers to information required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of defense articles, including information in the form of blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation. For a complete definition of technical data, see 120.10 of the ITAR. Pursuant to 127.1 of the ITAR, it is unlawful to export any defense article or technical data for which a license or written approval is required without first obtaining the required authorization from the DDTC. Please note that disclosing (including oral or visual disclosure) or tranferring technical data to a foreign person, whether in the United States or abroad, is considered an export under 120.17 of the ITAR.
The Department believes Defense Distributed may not have established the proper jurisdiction of the subject technical data. To resolve this matter officially, we request that Defense Distributed submit Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) determination requests for the following selection of data files available on DEFCAD.org, and any other technical data for which Defense Distributed is unable to determine proper jurisdiction:
1.Defense Distributed Liberator pistol
2..22 electric
3.125mm BK-14M high-explosive anti-tank warhead
4.5.56/.223 muzzle brake
5.Springfield XD-40 tactical slide assembly
6.Sound Moderator – slip on
7.“The Dirty Diane” 1/2-28 to 3/4-16 STP S3600 oil filter silencer adapter
8.12 gauge to .22 CB sub-caliber insert
9.Voltlock electronic black powder system
10.VZ-58 sight
DTCC/END requests that Defense Distributed submits its CJ requests within three weeks of the receipt of this letter and notify this office of the final CJ determinations. All CJ requests must be submitted electronically through an online application using the DS-4076 Commodity Jurisdiction Request Form. The form, guidance for submitting CJ requests, and other relevant information such as a copy of the ITAR can be found on DDTC’s website at http://www.pmddtc.state.gov./
Until the Department provides Defense Distributed with the final CJ determinations, Defense Distributed should treat the above technical data as ITAR-controlled. This means that all such data shoudl be removed form public access immediately. Defense Distributed should also review the remainder of the data made public on its website to determine whether any additional data may be similarly controlled and proceed according to ITAR requirements.
Additionally, DTCC/END requests information about the procedures Defense Distributed follows to d
Making, transferring, and selling (distinct from merely transferring) are all regulated by federal statute.
You can make without a license if you register the item and pay the tax. Only a licensed FFL / SOT can sell as part of business activities, and transfers between individuals usually must be conducted through a licensee as well. /IANAL, watch yer cornhole
I don't know why the Department of State is bothering, then, because not just blueprints but 3D CAD files for numerous firearms have been in the wild for years. The basic AR-15 design is public domain, M-14 blueprints are available to anybody via FOIA requests, FAL blueprints are all over the world, and you can make an AK-47 with scrap metal, a hammer, and hand files... as evidenced by Pakistani tribes doing just that.
DoS is going to lose and lose badly. Which may have been DEFCAD's plan all along.
You know... bullets DO trip metal detectors and show up on X-rays.
Unless you're planning on beating somebody to death with your plastic gun, it's going to be detected.
The tech is very well propagated and entrenched across a multitude of industries and has been for years now.
It's not going anywhere. It's also much, much too easy for people to build at home.
You're assuming this wasn't part of the plan.
What pushes his ideology farther along the path, puttering away in semi-obscurity on his website, or invoking the full speed and fury of the internet's anti-censorship reflexes and spreading these files so far and wide they'll be easily available forever?
That would already be governed in the US by the National Firearms Act, as an AOW (Any Other Weapon). Making one without paying a tax is a 10 year federal felony.
ITAR is one of the most nebulous, subjective, overbroad laws currently on the books.
You would be livid if you saw the full list of some of the ridiculous things that have been slapped with ITAR restrictions. Things like entertainment software (FS Flight Simulator), kids toys (explorer night vision goggles), and hiking equipment (various complex compasses and navigation aids that were allegedly too close to being useful for aiming mortars and artillery).
You spoil all our fun.
Primers and powder aren't too hard to make either.
It's actually (allegedly) the Department of State. DEFCAD got their bureaucracy wrong. Would be awesome to get the headline corrected.
You know, you can always use printed parts to cast molds and pour aluminum parts from them (or even steel if you're brave).
You could also bootstrap yourself a David Gingery lathe and turn a barrel from scrap steel if you wanted.
Just saying.
Yep, that was named for him.
If we keep repositioning his body while everyone is blinking, maybe nobody will be able to tell he's actually dead.
How many false positives do they get? How many false negatives? The auto-sear for a registered conversion device to make an AR-15 capable of automatic fire is an extremely simple object with one moving part and a spring. I can all but guarantee you that somewhere else, somehow, there is a component of some mechanical device that is nearly identical in shape, layout, and dimension.
That's probably the case for most internal parts of most modern weapons, too. Firearms are dazzlingly simple devices when all is said and done. If we start chaining down society from being able to make anything that might be mistaken for a gun, society is going to become fed up with the entire notion of that stupidity in, oh, five minutes. Long enough to find out they can't print their latest design, doodad, iWhatsit accessory, or critical replacement part for a car engine or medical device.
Even with a very good recognition algorithm that somehow didn't piss people off, all it would do is start a design arms race between black market engineers and the bureaucrats maintaining the blacklist. And that would probably, ultimately, drive a level of small arms innovation the likes of which we haven't seen in more than a century.
Politicians won't be able to ban printers entirely. They would be lynched.
Their only real option is to try and impose some kind of blacklisted geometry detector, which won't work and will get the whole regulatory system torn out and stomped on shortly thereafter.
You show me a computer algorithm that can not only recognize arbitrary 3D geometry but discern purpose and intent of an object without any other context, and I'll show you a Nobel Prize.
No... they really can't.
Lead is used because it is dense and keeps its shape under 20k + PSI, but still malleable enough to engage the rifling in a barrel. Soft clay will come apart. Dried clay will shatter in the barrel. Glass will probably shatter and obstruct the bore and blow up the gun.