The backers of the Wiki Weapons Project want to create a free, opensource digital file for printing a working handgun at home. But can they do so legally?
Posted 10.04.2012 at 2:00 pm
45 Comments
Gun With Printed Lower Receiver
Defense Distributed
Earlier this week, the Wiki Weapons Project--an initiative to create a 3-D printed handgun and distribute the digital design file for free online--ran into a stumbling block when 3-D printer provider Stratasys pulled the lease on a printer it had provided the group. Stratasys cited a clause in the lease agreement that allows the company to rescind a lease for printers believed to be used for unlawful purposes. That raises the obvious (and thorny) question: Is the Wiki Weapons Project doing anything illegal?
We at PopSci are experts on many things, but federal firearms regulations and intellectual property law are not among them. As we understand it, one is required to obtain a federal firearms manufacturing license to produce firearms in this country--if those firearms are for sale. The Wiki Weapons Project has demonstrated no intention to sell any potential firearm it creates, but rather to create a freely distributed digital file that would allow anyone with the right hardware and know-how to print their own firearm.
And the law doesn't have much to say about that, not explicitly, anyway. Regardless of your personal feelings toward the Wiki Weapons Project, it is at the very least forcing us to take a look at what happens in a world where information (which wants to be free) can be easily converted into physical objects--many of which (like firearms) are not supposed to flow freely.
"You have an Anarchist’s Cookbook kind of question. Just information is generally pretty hard to make illegal. It’s just information."
“This raises lots of interesting questions,” says Michael Weinberg, a staff attorney at Public Knowledge, a legal consortium focused on digital technology, the internet and intellectual property. “There are going to be a lot of stories in the future about people doing interesting things and uninteresting things with 3-D printing. The question people need to ask themselves is: was this possible before 3-D printing? And if so, did the use of a 3-D printer fundamentally change the nature of it. For this, it seems to me that the answer is no.”
That’s a common sentiment among the experts we talked to.
“With traditional machine tools, one is already capable of manufacturing one's own firearms,” says Christopher Walsh, clinical instructional fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society. “Although I am not an expert on gun control laws, I would be very surprised if existing regulations did not already account for home manufacture of firearms. Also, for the time being, it takes far less money, effort, and expertise to simply buy a firearm on the black market than to 3-D print one.”
So the idea that there’s no legal framework in place to govern the 3-D printing of guns isn’t really accurate. Whatever laws govern the making of firearms at home by means other than 3-D printing should also regulate whatever the Wiki Weapons Project cooks up (assuming they can locate another 3-D printer). Of course, there are considerations beyond the strictly legal.
“From my perspective, this really doesn’t raise novel questions of intellectual property rights, but common sense and potential civil and criminal liabilities,” says Michael Powell, an intellectual property attorney in the Atlanta office of Baker Donelson. “What 'defense' is this group really trying to achieve that couldn’t be achieved using a legal purchased firearm, or even a Taser, a can of pepper spray or mace, or other personal protection device?”
Related Articles
 | 3-D Printing Company Confiscates Wiki Weapon Project's Printer |
| A Blueprint to Let Anyone 3-D Print an Open-Source Gun At Home |
 | 3-D Printing, Now in Stainless Steel |
Tags
Technology, Clay Dillow, 3-D printing, defense distributed, firearms, materials science, military, wiki weapon project“These files aren’t guns,” Weinberg says. “You have an Anarchist’s Cookbook kind of question. Just information is generally pretty hard to make illegal. It’s just information. So the fact that you can now get this file and it can tell you how to produce a gun is very similar to a recipe online that tells you how to build a bomb or something like that. Just because a Web site tells you how to do something like that doesn’t make the Web site illegal.”
At least not yet. At some point in the future it could be, depending on how legislatures decide to deal with perceived threats to law and order. And hopefully, Weinberg says, they won’t deal with this technology by overreacting.
“Technology is ahead of the law in a lot of ways,” Weinberg says. “One of the things I tell policy makers a lot is that when you have a new technology where it’s not clear how it’s going to be used or how it’s going to be adopted, the worst things you can do is imagine the most dystopian future you can possibly imagine and then try to regulate to prevent that dystopian future. For two reasons: One, because that dystopian future is never going to happen, so on one level you’ve wasted your time. But the most pernicious thing is that what you inevitably do is you outlaw things that could’ve been very productive and useful, things that you weren’t smart enough to think of at the time. So not only are you not preventing this dystopia, but you are actively preventing positive outcomes.”
Harvard’s Walsh agrees.
“It is an area that will raise many new questions,” he says. “But the hope is that we will not overreact and sacrifice either the positive potential of this new technology or Constitutional protections.”
45 Comments
To comment, please Login.
Popular Tags
Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 2013: American Energy Independence
Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.
Popular on Popsci
Most Commented
Technology
- Defense Distributed's Cody Wilson On Being Told To Remove 3-D Printed Gun Plans: "We Win"
- Thieves Stole $45 Million From ATMs Because The U.S. Uses Absurd 40-Year-Old Technology
- A California State Senator Is Trying To Outlaw 3-D Printed Guns
- 2013 Invention Awards: Family Flier
- Autonomous X-47B Jet Fighter Makes Historic First Launch From An Aircraft Carrier
- U.S. Navy Spends $37 Billion On A Ship That Barely Works
- Time-Lapse GIFs Show Earth Transforming Over 25 Years
- How To Turn An AK-47 Into A Soup Ladle
- How The World's First 3-D Printed Gun Works
- Iran Unveils Absurd New Stealth Drone
Most Emailed
Technology
- 7 Reasons Why 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Is A Beginner's Guide To Star Trek [Spoiler Alert]
- America's Road To Energy Independence, Part 1
- Video: MIT's Cheetah Robot Trots, Then Gallops
- Mapping The Simpsons' Slow Descent Into Suckitude
- Google Bets $10.7 Million On Drone Intelligence
- Concept Skyscraper Generates Its Own Energy, Looks Like A Toilet Brush
- Robot Plane Flies Humans 500 Miles
- Google And NASA Team Up In Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab
- How NASA Could Save Kepler
- Inside The Army's Sunshine Simulator
Most Viewed
Technology
- 7 Reasons Why 'Star Trek Into Darkness' Is A Beginner's Guide To Star Trek [Spoiler Alert]
- America's Road To Energy Independence, Part 1
- Video: MIT's Cheetah Robot Trots, Then Gallops
- Mapping The Simpsons' Slow Descent Into Suckitude
- Google Bets $10.7 Million On Drone Intelligence
- Concept Skyscraper Generates Its Own Energy, Looks Like A Toilet Brush
- Robot Plane Flies Humans 500 Miles
- Google And NASA Team Up In Quantum Artificial Intelligence Lab
- How NASA Could Save Kepler
- Inside The Army's Sunshine Simulator
Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email
Contributing Writers:
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email
Today on PopSci.com
Copyright © 2012 Popular Science
A Bonnier Corporation Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Wow, this is tossing a mystery ingredient in the home soup recipe. I believe in the right to bear arms. And I understand the importance of regulating and registering weapons.
Still, even if a law is made to not allow this printing of home weapons. I do not think the law will have any bite too it. The reality is, any person has always had the ability to make a weapon in their home, with no one's knowledge. I am not sure how they could actually stop it.
This is a gremlin in the laws for regulating and registration weapons. Even if these plastic weapons have a short shooting life with the heat of bullets; it only takes one or few more shots to kill someone anyways. Then melt down the gun and easily destroy the evidence, plus the ballistics.
The relevant document for the question of whether it is legal for an unlicensed individual to manufacture a firearm is "TITLE 18, UNITED STATE CODE, CHAPTER 44".
Much of the apparent ambiguity and confusion here is because there is no specific provision that explicit states that it is legal. Rather, the code states what is illegal. Before I go on, I'll preface this explanation with the disclaimer that the conclusion below is not just my own opinion, but the ATF itself has made the following conclusion and has stated it verbatim in letters available online and here:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html#commercial-parts-assembly
So here we go into the rabbit hole... from title 18, USC, chapter 44
§ 922 Unlawful acts.
(a) It shall be unlawful—
(1) for any person—
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, or licensed
dealer, to engage in the business of
importing, manufacturing, or dealing
in firearms, or in the course of such
business to ship, transport, or receive
any firearm in interstate or foreign
commerce;
Key word here is "engage in the business of", which is defined earlier in chapter 44:
21) The term "engaged in the business"
means—
(A) as applied to a manufacturer of
firearms, a person who devotes time,
attention, and labor to manufacturing
firearms as a regular course of trade
or business with the principal objective
of livelihood and profit through
the sale or distribution of the firearms
manufactured;
further definition from chapter 44:
22) The term "with the principal
objective of livelihood and profit"
means that the intent underlying the
sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly
one of obtaining livelihood
and pecuniary gain, as opposed to
other intents, such as improving or liquidating
a personal firearms collection:
Provided, That proof of profit shall not
be required as to a person who engages
in the regular and repetitive purchase
and disposition of firearms for
criminal purposes or terrorism.
and lastly;
So essentially, the ATF is of the opinion that, provided you are not "IN THE BUSINESS" or manufacturing the firearm, you are not violating any provisions under 18 USC, Ch 44, section 922, and therefore are lawfully manufacturing the firearm.
Of course (and this is an IMPORTANT caveat), you could create a firearm that violates other provisions of 922, for instance ones related to NFA firearms, machine guns, or banned imported military firearms. But generally speaking, pistols, rifle, shotguns and semi-automatic 'assault rifles' (dont get me started on that term...) are all treated equally under the applicable provisions of section 922.
A note to PopSci: Some of your readers happen to be knowledgeable... hopefully numerous notes from myself and others spurred this article, but I find it hard to believe you couldnt find any legal authority, or ask the ATF directly, the legality of manufacture of firearms for private use.
Here is the letter I referenced from the ATF on this topic;
http://firearmsfreedomact.com/BATF%20Marbut%20Response%20Letter.pdf
I like these kinds of things purely for watching these lawmakers and legal teams scramble to figure out how laws apply to a technology that didn't exist when the law was made.
Unfortunately, whether or not you are "in the business of", the ATF is going to go after you anyways.
Even if it was illegal to manufacture a firearm for personal use, the only illegal part is the lower receiver. I could print out every other part of an AR15, and then buy the lower receiver and I'd be fine.
Gun laws are crazy though, and if the ATF doesn't like you, they'll find a way to screw you.
There is nothing new about this issue at all. The technology of building is not a factor in the law. How you make it doesn't matter. One could take bamboo and a propellent and create a controlled device. The link to a PDF above was as clear as it needs to be. That only applies to Federal laws, city and state would need to be also discovered.
What you make matters and how you transport or sell it does in a few places. One very important issue is a tax on each controlled part that must be paid. That tax was supposed to go for hunter education and wildlife restoration but always seems to be misused for other things.
You and all your legal "experts" failed to mention the primary reason why the project could very well be illegal and why Stratasys likely pulled the lease.
As you rightly point out it is not illegal to make a gun at home not intended for sale.
What is likely a felony is creating an all or mostly plastic gun. Federal law states that any attempt to make a gun to evade standard detection measures is a felony.
@3DTOPO
Excellent point! 18 USC Ch 44 Section 922, part p is what you're referring to (posted below). This will likely hold water for this case because their stated intent it to create and provide for a COMPLETELY plastic firearm (though it really will be as dangerous to the user as the victim... but that's another argument). As a side note... it looks like PopSci only consulted technology and IP lawyers... it might have been wise for them to have contacted literally ANYONE with legal understanding of the Gun Control Act... or the BATF (that's exactly what they exist for).
Back on topic... Should wikiweapons decide to incorporate some metal components (a metal barrel might be a good idea!), then they would likely be in the clear; just need enough metal to be detected by the calibrated metal detector (would probably be a good idea to ask the BATF of you can verify). As for paragraph 1B, it doesn't require the weapon be metal for compliance. Most airport xray machines are capable of discerning the shape of many non-metallic objects, so provided the plastic used is not transparent to the machine, you'd also be in the clear.
And.... for everyone's reference:
(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. Barium sulfate or other compounds may be used in the fabrication of the component.
(2) For purposes of this subsection—
(A) the term “firearm” does not include the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(B) the term “major component” means, with respect to a firearm, the barrel, the slide or cylinder, or the frame or receiver of the firearm; and
(C) the term “Security Exemplar” means an object, to be fabricated at the direction of the Attorney General, that is—
(i) constructed of, during the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection, 3.7 ounces of material type 17–4 PH stainless steel in a shape resembling a handgun; and
(ii) suitable for testing and calibrating metal detectors:
Provided, however, That at the close of such 12-month period, and at appropriate times thereafter the Attorney General shall promulgate regulations to permit the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms previously prohibited under this subparagraph that are as detectable as a “Security Exemplar” which contains 3.7 ounces of material type 17–4 PH stainless steel, in a shape resembling a handgun, or such lesser amount as is detectable in view of advances in state-of-the-art developments in weapons detection technology.
In the end it is still legal for this college student to carry out what he was doing. He never gave evidence that he was going "INTO THE BUSINESS" and wasn't even necessarily manufacturing guns. He very well may have ended up making tests models to see if his "blueprint" worked, but the distribution of information isn't illegal unless specifically stated otherwise (e.g. The distribution of private and personal information that you were given strict rights to distribute is illegal, but that is already well known, Annonymous's hacking is one such case, hence the reason why companies such as Google and Facebook have such things in their Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy.)
@QuantumLeaper
On the data service side, yes, absolutely, very much legal (as far as I can tell, but I'm no lawyer...)
BUT... Since his stated intent was to not only develop and provide the models of the gun as a service (not necessarily illegal), but also to manufacture it. That second part changes the game.
If he does make a test model, no matter his intentions for doing so, and it is completed to the point that it can be classified as a firearm (as defined in the Gun Control Act), it must comply with all applicable provisions of Title 18 Ch 44 Section 922. If he were to manufacture, even as a proof of concept, his fully plastic pistol, he would be in violation of paragraph p (post above yours) and open to criminal prosecution.
At this time he hasn't actually manufactured anything, so he hasn't committed a crime. His stated intent though would violate current law as it is stated, so that is likely enough to fulfill the lease clauses that the 3D printer company used to terminate the lease on the 3D printer.
I think it should be legal but treat it as such as you would for people who have the right-to-carry and have a safety course. Essentially, people would have to get a permit after attending a class (lenthy I hope for multiple safety concerns), background checks, etc. We give the people the right to carry concealed (I'm one), so why shouldn't we give them the same right to make their own guns to bypass overpriced weaponry from gun manufacturers. Of course, I'm sure there would be a tracking system in place for the 3-D printers to ensure these people weren't just entering crime and selling their guns then to any Joe Shmoe, probably a gun selling liscense or distribution liscense. Either way, it shouldn't be easy to do, but it should still be achieveable.
@b.a.baracas I cant seem to get away from these articles on PopSci... I apologize to you all :(
The fact remains, you DO have the right to make your own firearms already, with no licensing or training requirements (unless the state you live in requires such to own a firearm... many don't). If it is legal for you to own a particular firearm (i.e. not a NFA regulated firearm, banned, or import controlled), you can build it yourself legally. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR DECADES.
The only reason this article poses this questions is many people didn't realize that we've been privately manufacturing (without any licensing)firearms legally for many decades (probably longer actually)using other machine tools... and then someone came along and built some parts for a gun with a new and trendy tool (3D printer) and got some press. All the folks that didn't know you could already do this assumed that 3D printing suddenly changed the game and it couldn't possibly be safe or legal for a regular Joe to build a gun on his own... but they never bothered to listen to the fact that nothing had changed and we just now have a different tool to do the same stuff we've been doing for a long time.
Most people know (or I hope they do) that people regularly load their own ammunition for personal use, and have since the revolutionary war and beyond. This whole fiasco is akin to someone making a bullet with a 3D printer and everyone panicking... why? I can go down to the local trading post (and even walmart up until a few years ago) and buy every component to build a bullet or shotgun shell, and small hand press to put it together, and presto! So why is the legal situation of doing so all of a sudden different because I bought a different tool to make the bullet?
Side Note: this is something I thought about after my multiple original posts, as a further proof of the legality of creating your own firearms, is that the GCA treats manufacture of ammunition identically to the manufacture of firearms, in that you must be a licensed manufacturer to be 'in the business of' loading ammunition. The unwritten exemption of loading ammunition for personal use is based on the exact same premise as the exemption for firearms manufacture for personal use.
Another point (because I love reading my own righting!) that is interesting is how much we are worried about this group making available a 'blue print' (in the form of a 3D model) for a complete firearm...
Just as an exercise, do a quick search for AR-15 CAD files... or 1911 CAD files... better yet, I'll just do it for you.
http://www.cncguns.com/downloads.html
Complete detailed CAD models for the AR-15 (the gun pictured in this article) and the 1911 pistol. Both designs are public domain now (no IP issues), and these designs could be used by anyone with "the right hardware and know-how", as the article says.
There are far better resources than that site, by the way. Just one of the top search results.
Again, what had this group of people changed?
I think when it becomes possible to print a gun manufacturers will be the first to do it.
Robot, wasn't there a debate about this a long time ago, over, oh I don't know, the 3D printed handcuff keys? Sgt. B, you were in on that one too, and you iambronco
Did I call it or did I call it? I TOLD you this was going to happen. I told every. Last. One of you. Don't believe me? Just take a looksee
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-07/hacking-handcuff-security-consultant-cracks-cuffs-open-3-d-printed-plastic-keys
Now do you believe me?
Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
Mark Twain
Guns are not dangerous, people are. Guns and other weapons can only make people more dangerous. The good thing about guns is that they provide the same amount of force to a 98lb woman as a knife to a 160lb man - with far less traning; and equal force to both. The question of weather people should have access to weapons is a question of how much one wants to suppress those weaker than others.
TeslasDisciple,
"...Did I call it or did I call it? I TOLD you this was going to happen. I told every. Last. One of you. Don't believe me?...".
Are you looking for a cookie? The fact that the author publishes this information for the public to beware of and respond too, gives a clue somebody was thinking about prior to you. But hey, if you in desperate need of a pat on the back or a reward of sorts just publish you house address buddy and a cookie will be in mail for you. ;)
Besides, typically in the wonderful world of electronics, things always getting better and cheaper, just wait until anyone can afford and have their own "Death Ray Laser" at home or just make it with public schematics down loaded off the internet for free. They can kill from miles away, with a computer aid guidance tripod system and there be no ballistics at all and silent too.
Zap!
no printer needed
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wV3lmbSv4
and the barrel will last longer and fire somehting more lethal than a plastic one
"No, officer that is not a bomb it is a 3d printer."
"Then what is in those metal tubes?"
"The base material used in the 3d fabrication."
"And those wires coming from the car battery?"
"The base material has to be heated in order to be formed."
"And what is that alarm clock wired into it for?"
"So that I can set the machine to start at a later time to schedual when the project will be done."
"And what does this 3d printer create?"
"Well, why, I am, uh, so glad you asked that officer . . . "
"And? What does it print?"
"Firey Death."
"Very well, carry on."
"Thank you officer."
Pointless story. If you can afford a 3-d printer, you can buy any gun you want already.
@mordrud, not pointless. 3D printers and the base materials (the "toner"), like most technology, will drop in price drastically once demand for it is sufficient. Once 3D printers are common in households (2 years? 5 years?) the cost of the weapon will be the same as the cost of the materials alone.
PLUS, no waiting period, no background check, no age requirement, and no license required.
Did PopSci redo this story or did they just erase all of the comments suggesting that we regain our natural rights as defended and provided for in the Constitution and its amendments?
Every human being has the inherent and inalienable right to self defense. If you don't believe this, then I wish you luck and for a person meaning harm to you to visit you shortly. Because we ALL have this natural right, and because the second amendment acknowledges that no infringement upon that right is valid; it should be apparent to all that the ATF and EVERY law concerning weapons is invalid, unconstitutional, and contrary to the natural order. The only thing propping up such distopian ideas, is the natural fear of small minded people. These are the same people who a few thousand years ago would have seen frogs always near water and assume that frogs spring into existence from the streams and ponds.
There should be no regulation on any right whatsoever. And still some people just don't get it and I'll bet they never will. I pity them, but I view them with disgust even more.
> "Complete detailed CAD models for the AR-15 (the gun pictured in this article) and the 1911 pistol. Both designs are public domain now (no IP issues), and these designs could be used by anyone with "the right hardware and know-how", as the article says."
> "Guns are not dangerous, people are. Guns and other weapons can only make people more dangerous. The good thing about guns is that they provide the same amount of force to a 98lb woman as a knife to a 160lb man - with far less traning; and equal force to both. The question of weather people should have access to weapons is a question of how much one wants to suppress those weaker than others."
I believe that a lot of commenters in this thread of stories have missed a point (I did until yesterday) - there is a large group of people who do not currently have the knowledge or skills to manufacture their own gun but would be able to figure out a 3-D printer. That would be children under 10. Enough said, from my POV.
Is this a serious concern when you live in America and can buy a gun easier then printing one out?
“When Ignorance lurks, so too do the frontiers of discovery and imagination”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why would that be a serious concern? Every adult should own a few firearms and carry them consistantly. There is no better way to create a law abiding and poliet society than to arm everyone.
After all, law enforcement are nothing more than normal citizens with the authority to arrest and use force. When those rights are extended, how many criminals would find themselves out of work when the police is everyone?
Even if a 10 year old can manufacture the gun, there is still the issue of ammo. A bullet-free gun is worthless.
Considering that I can craft a working, single shot, 12g shotgun from about $15 worth of pipe and materials with no tool more advanced than a drill and a hacksaw means that no one is ever going to completely disarm me. Add in the fact that a blackpowder armcannon is as easy to make, and even if ammo is outlawed, I could still shoot a deer or shell a building with nothing but knowledge and common hardware.
The only people who fear guns are those who are without them.
@ oaksparr, you are close on that whole cop thing. In actuality, all gov't authority is derived from the rights of the individual. The use of force is only allowable in a defensive role and the authority to arrest an individual is an extension of that and your right to self defense. Cops have no more authority than you or I. However, they often imagine themselves Gods and people with weak wills will often go along with what anyone with a stronger will says.
BUT, I do like the part about you never being completely disarmed. I too feel this way. If need be, I could easily fashion several types of explosive weapons with no more than a hacksaw and my dewalt drill. In fact, that is how thousands of Afhan's have been able to attack our troops despite being "disarmed". No human is ever truly disarmed until he is dead. There is no way around that and it amazes me that so many people think that a man w/o a gun is incapable of murder.
I dont know much about 3-d printing, but I do know a lot about firearms, having been a shooter, machinist, and amateur gunsmith for a couple of decades.
It seems that a lot of posters here are in a tizzy over the idea that someone could print up an AR15, pop it out of the printer and go on a shooting spree. The 5.56x45 round generates about 62,000 psi during ignition. I am pretty sure that a plastic bolt, barrel, and barrel extension are going to be around a factor of 1000x too weak to withstand that kind of force. A plastic buffer would not have sufficient mass to allow proper cycling of the action, a plastic firing pin does not have sufficient mass to detonate the primer, a plastic hammer might be able to drive a steel firing pin, but the sear surfaces would not last more than a few cycles as plastic. There are also things like the gas tube, springs, pins, etc. that will have to be steel as well. So to me, the idea of an ALL plastic gun that can fire high pressure commercial ammunition is laughable at best. Even the lowly .45 ACP generates 21,000 psi. The bottom line is that to make a real world functioning firearm, you will need a large number of precision machined steel parts. You might be able to construct a single shot throw away pistol that might fire a low pressure pistol cartridge 1 or 2 times with a bare minimum of metal content, but a functional AR15? No freaking way.
Now, if you are just talking about printing a stripped plastic lower and upper receiver , which are typically forged aluminum, and then assembling them using conventional steel parts, that probably is possible, since there are several manufacturers out there already making polymer receiver halves.
10 year old Johhny printing a functional AR and terrorizing the neighborhood? Not going to happen until the printers can print close tolerance precision machined high tensile steel parts like barrels, bolts, springs, etc.
"We at PopSci are experts on many things, but federal firearms regulations and intellectual property law are not among them."
Not only that but you are not knowledgeable about the physics of firearms.
Would it not be better to consult with the experts rather than write an article that is simply wrong on so many points?
wow, just as I predicted (just believe me), this discussion went well off topic.
A) is the guy with the printer doing something illegal? we don't have enough info? As said above, if he is building suppressors, NFA guns (Class III machine guns, etc) then yes. If not, then he isn't. I suspect he has a valid court case with the 3D printer company.
B) Intellectual property, Can I build my own IPAD for personal use. Does the law prohibit me building and using a product still under patent if I don't sell it? Don't know but that may be the other aspect of this case, was he breaking laws on intellectual property. That would really be a stretch for the 3D company to say was the problem. Especially as pointed out correctly above, the plans for CNC machines to make replicas of 1911's and AR's have been available for awhile.
C) As to felons getting guns, they really don't need this and the law says they can't possess them as well, so build or buy, they are breaking the law. But we know bad guys don't really care, if you are willing to go on to a school campus and kill students, posting that guns are illegal doesn't seem to be a barrier to such behavior.
You are definitely correct in your reasoning, but the problem is that all these "laws" are in fact unconstitutional.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Infringe
infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass
Yes I know the supreme court has ruled some laws can violate certain rights, but in fact the text of the 2nd amendment does not state that supreme court has such a right. SO all rulings done by the supreme "joke" court are unconstitutional.They should have put at the end of the text (And we're not kidding).
People need to seriously wake up, actually never mind everyone go back to sleep like good little sheep.
@3DTOPO
There are already several manufacturers of plastic lower AR receivers and that currently market them. They do not violate federal law.
Yes it is true that anyone with the machine tools and training to use them could, in theory, make a gun at home. The difference is the degree of difficulty. Its one thing to take a raw billet of steel and cut or stamp out a functioning firearm, its a completely different proposition to have a 3D printer that you simply load a program into and viola! out pops a machine gun. Suppose some one wants to publish a 3D printer plan for a nuclear bomb trigger? Is that something that any teenager with an Ayn Rand complex should be able to get?
Most miss the point... This is not a real,functional weapon- its a realistic "toy". It is a plastic replica of the outside of a real weapon.there are no moving parts and no metal parts. There are no articulated or hinged surfaces. So the debate is rather goofy.
@jbairddo
The only valid case that the 3D printer company has would be related strictly to the intent of wikiweapons to print COMPLETELY plastic firearms. That, per the Gun Control Act (GCA), is strictly illegal. A firearm must be composed of enough ferrous material to be as detectable as an 'exemplar' (a generic 'gun' with a specific amount of metal per GCA). So long as wikiweapon's goal is to create (even if it is jsut to test heir information service) a plastic weapon they are courting criminal charges.
@lokisgodhi
3DTOPO is in fact correct. Though 'major components' of a firearm can be made of plastic (ie the lower receiver), the assembly of all major components (receivers, frame, barrel, etc.) must contain sufficient metal to be detectable.
@CRPolk
I don't understand how we can leverage human laziness as a justification for labeling one manufacturing technique or another dangerous. Yes, machining is more technically difficult than operating a 3D printer, but it is no less accessible. the only difference between the two is each individuals capacity and drive to learn. Should we be worried about the advent of CNC machining? We missed that train a while ago.
So now we are deciding which technologies we should and shouldn't promote or regulate based on whether they are difficult enough to make most people of ill will say "eh, I'm too lazy to figure it out... guess I wont make a gun to murder someone today..." That's simply naive, and provides incentive to reduce access and usability of technology rather than expanding it to include more people.
I find that argument frighteningly regressive.
Creating a free weapons open source guide to using 3D Printing to create workable weapons must not be allowed.
There is reason why weapons are manufactured and machined by professionals.
The reason is so that all weapons can be tracked on who and where the weapon is sold.
But more importantly safety. Weapons manufacturing is an art and skill that involves precise calculations in order for the weapon to function properly.
3D Printed weapons made in private may seem reliable but in fact do not come with a manufacturers seal of approval.
Such weapons could explode on the first use or the 1,000th use either injuring or killing the user and those around them. The liability issue involved is not a sideswiping irrevant issue.
The real question is would you want the ability of criminals to create an underground market for these weapons using 3D Printing where the weapon will never have been through the system making it almost completely untraceable?
Crimes through the use of handguns would increase dramatically to a full blown epidemic.
The real problem however are terrorist cells across the planet who can now create their own cache of weapons without coming anywhere near the radar on the amount of weapons they have.
All the terrorists have to do is purchase the material that goes into the making of a 3D Printed weapon, which by all modern standards such material would not even cause a blip on the Terror Nets watch list programs.
The next thing you know the terrorists around the world would have more than enough weapons to arm their fighters in a similar manner that the military does.
Just think if 3D Printing can be used to create the weapon then it can be used to create to casing and round for the same weapon. All that needs done now is for the primer to be filled.
It is probably already to late to stop the criminal and terrorists groups from obtaining the prints to create a weapon.
Should a 3D user be permitted to create a real non working firearm or firearm replica? Yes.
But such firearm created should have a section of the barrell where the round travels to be solid during the creation process.
Real working firearms however should be made illegal to create using 3D Printing.
Printing or manufacturing is not illegal. Loading one with ammo and schooting it at a person is.
The greatest thing possible would be for criminals to print hundreds of millions (if not billions) of guns!!!
In a world flooded with guns, there are no tyrants, no abusers, and no criminals free to victimize those weakened by their government's fear.
Everyone would carry, and thus we would ALL be safe, since the criminal element is never more than a percent or two of the total population.
In a country where every person is an armed enforcer of the social good, where everyone is a law enforcement officer, where everyone is a soldier of the land, would you want to be a criminal?
@TeslasDisciple - The reason people like you irritate me is because you cant seem to figure out that legislation isn't going to change anything. the reason why crime is such a problem is because people are willing to do things ILLEGALLY. Last I remember, it is actually illegal to kill someone. If everyone obeyed the law then there would be no murder and there would be no reason for people to scream "control the weapons"
"People break the law and kill other people, lets pass another law controlling the ways they kill. The last law failed but I am sure this law will work!"
"It has been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insanity
How good this article is! I like it. If you are a hangdgun lover, you can try playing several tournaments with many players from the masses online. The online gaming websites also encourages the players by giving the exciting gifts to the winner of the game.
friv1.co | friv3.co
The problem is that we use - in the words of Bush41 - kinder and gentler words, to obscure the true meaning of our intentions. "Prostitution" is such an ugly word - we'll just call it "hooking". "Gambling" sounds so nefarious - we'll refer to it as "gaming". Loosing our inhibitions, and having sexual relations just for fun sounds so reckless, so we'll call it "hookin' up". Likewise, "manufacturing" is regulated, so we'll just call it "printing".
I'm late to this party, but I just wanted to comment on the constitutionality of the Supreme Court's ruling regarding "some laws can violate certain rights" and the 2nd Amendment.(jerzyguy29, 11OCT2012, above).
Article III of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, defines its jurisdiction, and sets forth some very basic procedure. Section 2 states, "The Judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the Laws of the United States..." If the Court has jurisdiction to rule on such cases, then it must have the power to decide them, otherwise the Court is an exercise in futility.
The 2nd Amendment became part of the Constitution upon its successful ratification, therefore any issue "arising under" the 2nd Amendment is under the purview of the Supreme Court. (See Const. Art. V). Various gun control laws become part of "the Laws of the United States" upon Congressional passage and Presidential signing. (See Const. Art. I, Sec 7[2]) Because Art. III, Sec. 2 existed as a part of the Constitution at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified, it was presumed to be known and in effect. It was not incumbent upon the authors of the amendments to affirmatively state the Court's authority because it had already been done when the Constitution was originally drafted and ratified.
I'm a great big fan of the 2nd Amendment and I congratulate the Roberts Court for incorporating it (finally!) as an individual right. (McDonald v. Chicago, 2010). But to my fellow enthusiasts, please take the time to read and understand the entirety of the Constitution before making ridiculous comments.
----------------
ignorantia legis non excusat
I think this video is a staged construct. I think its presenter is a trained actor. I think the purpose of this article is to generate discussion. I think those who know and understand the manufacture and design of firearms know this 3d printable gun is a fantasy, as no metal parts can be printed. As such, the printed parts are nothing more than parts and useless without the metal components, needless to say the ammunition.
I do see its potential for making replica training firearms, toys for children and replacement parts for virtually anything and everything, from household appliances to medical equipment in 3rd world countries .
However - I do see the potential for plastic firearm parts to be smuggled through airport x rays and assembled in , for example, airplanes or prisons, courtrooms, sporting arenas,churches, mosques and synagogues.
In my opinion making a non detectable non traceable firearm
is as socially irresponsible as a man made version of the ebola virus.
We dont need more guns, and we dont need to make them more accessible to people who are unable to purchase firearms through the proper legal channels.
In a Napoleonic legal system, whatever is not expressly permitted is automatically forbidden. Thank God, we in the U.S. don't live under Napoleonic law, although the legal system we do have is so convoluted that one apparently needs to hire a law firm to do months of research and file a preemptive suit in order to be sure. Obviously a hack writer doesn't have the time to do any legal research about what he's writing. He's got deadlines to make, and besides, the legal system is so convoluted, it would take up too much of the article to explain and possible bore the audience (nevermind that the legality is the title question).
The act of making a gun out of plastic does not necessarily give the maker criminal intent. Sure, plastic is harder to detect by the older x-ray and metal detectors, but the law abiding citizens will want to make a plastic gun because it is inexpensive and convenient. Machining gun parts from plastic is nothing new. One can obtain a CNC machine for about $1k or less. Terrorists intent on smuggling a plastic gun onto a plane so they can kill themselves will not care how many laws say they can't do that or how much time they could get. So what would be the point of making the manufacture of the personal plastic gun illegal? All that would do is make the assumption that anyone with a plastic gun automatically has criminal intent. That's quite a leap of logic.
Many people are interested in self sufficiency. They want to be able to make their own gun rather than buy it, not because they want to stay under the radar of authorities, but because they don't like the idea of having to get permission from Napoleon every time they want to piss. It's also great to be able to get open source software using torrents. But the day will come when anyone with software that was not licensed by MS and designed to spy on the user will be assumed to be pirating media. The billionaire controlled monopolies have more say in our government than the voters do, and they are willing to re-write the Bill of Rights to say that their right to protect their assets is more important than our freedoms. Just the fact that there were Bills in Congress and the Senate that needed to be protested is evidence of that. In time, they will try again and again until they succeed.
As far as the company pulling the lease goes, they are in the right to do so. If they believed their printer might be used for unlawful activity and they didn't take action, then they could be held liable. I think the best thing for the Wiki Weapons Project would be to make their own printer. Then make some non-lethal projects to start, such as a paint-ball gun.
Criminals are not going to heed the laws anyway. Putting more regulations on law abiding citizens is not a deterrent to the criminals. In some places it may be legally required to register every firearm. Law abiding citizens will register their inexpensive printed weapons. Criminals will steal your registered weapon that you ordered from a major manufacturer.
A plastic gun can be destroyed. So can a metal gun. Just take an acetaline torch to it and melt it into a smear of ore. Or immerse it into a caustic chemical and let it rust and dissolve away. Plastic is lighter in weight and does not dent. There are more lawful reasons to want a plastic gun than unlawful ones. Plastic does not rust and is resistant to acid and lye. A plastic gun might float. Perfect for carry while boating and other water sports.
But there is also 3D printing with metal. Plastic is not the only medium with 3D printing.
Howdy,
Not sure if it is possible, but take the 3D plastic mechanism and convert it to a metal casting through wax copy replacement. Brass from a radiator would most likely be easiest to use, be more durable than plastic, have the ability to be quickly fixed by 12 volt brazing, and the soft metal can be tooled by hand in the field if necessary.
Why is Popular Science so politically leaning? They have been at least ever since their coverage of 9/11 and how the towers collapsed.
But, even outside of that, they've always had a bit of a 'boy scout' non-objective 'pro-america' posturing anyway. I can ignore it when it is innocent and just kind of taking the 'happy' stance on things but... more and more and more they are constantly pushing whatever agenda the state seems to want pushed.
For a magazine with the word 'science' in its title, it seems like it could be at least a bit more neutral. If nothing else, simply by presenting the information and then allowing the writer to add their spin, but even that should be lighter than it seems to have become.
Either the owners are pushing them, the editors are pushing them, or they've just hired people of a like mindset.
It's unfortunate too, they really are a great magazine.... minus that.