Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

You Can't Print a Gun If You Have No 3D Printer

timothy posted about a year ago | from the big-conspiracy-or-small-minds dept.

Printer 632

FatLittleMonkey writes "You may recall Cody Wilson's project to create a 3D printed gun, mentioned previously on Slashdot. Well, the Defense Distributed project has suffered a decidedly non-technical setback, with printer manufacturer Stratasys revoking the lease and repossessing the printer (presumably prying it from plastic models of Cory's cold dead hands). According to New Scientist, the manufacturer cited his lack of a federal firearms manufacturer's license as their reason for the repossession, adding that it does not knowingly allow its printers to be used for illegal purposes." Homemade firearms are not (in the U.S.) per se illegal on a federal basis, though states have varying degrees of regulation. It would be helpful if anyone more conversant with firearms law than me can point out what law or laws this project might be breaking.

cancel ×

632 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

the message is clear: (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525387)

if you're going to print gray-area items, print them quietly, and announce after your beta is complete.

Re:the message is clear: (4, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#41525645)

Very true... But the most important part of this story, missing from the summary, is that this printer was leased, not sold.

Re:the message is clear: (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525997)

> printer manufacturer Stratasys revoking the lease and repossessing the printer

Re:the message is clear: (5, Insightful)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about a year ago | (#41525661)

If you're going to print something illicit, do it quietly and own the printer you're using.

Re:the message is clear: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525889)

nope, better to do it on someone else's printer, and not own one at all. means you can share the civil liability out if the worst happens :p

Politics (5, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year ago | (#41525395)

What's next, refusing to sell printers to people because their for / against gay marriage? This is a tool and he was using it for legal purposes. What the manufacturer did was no different than any other kind of censorship. Deplorable.

Re:Politics (2, Insightful)

Shompol (1690084) | about a year ago | (#41525429)

No, this is not "censorship". This is Toyota reclaiming your car because you drove to a bar and they [Toyota] don't have a liquor license.

Re:Politics (4, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | about a year ago | (#41525523)

No, this is not "censorship". This is Toyota reclaiming your car because you drove to a bar and they [Toyota] don't have a liquor license.

Not even close. More like Toyota voiding the lease and demanding the car back because the lease says "no entering car races" and you publicly state you're entering a car race with your leased Toyota.

Re:Politics (5, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#41525641)

Thing is, federal firearms laws are mostly about the sale of firearms. You can make them for your own use all day long and not break the federal law. But if you plan to sell them, you need to get serial numbers for them. And for that you need to register.

Re:Politics (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#41525673)

No, this is not "censorship". This is Toyota reclaiming your car because you drove to a bar and they [Toyota] don't have a liquor license.

Not even close. More like Toyota voiding the lease and demanding the car back because the lease says "no entering car races" and you publicly state you're entering a car race with your leased Toyota.

Still not quite right; more like, Toyota repossesses your car because you say you want to enter it in a race, and Toyota is under the impression that a certain type of license you don't posses is legally required for said race, even though there is no such licensing requirement.

Re:Politics (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#41525569)

No, it's Toyota reclaiming your car because you drove to a bar and you *might* not be of drinking age in *some* places. Regardless of whether or not you're of age where you are.

Re:Politics (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525809)

No, it's Toyota reclaiming your car because you drove to a bar and you *might* not be of drinking age in *some* places. Regardless of whether or not you're of age where you are.

No, it's a stupid analogy from the get-go. The printer maker is worried about becoming liable, and instead of risking their business they've wisely decided to pull that device. The same thing would have happened if the guy had announced that he was going to start manufacturing sets of master keys, counterfeit money, drugs, bomb casings, fake ID's, etc.

These guys are playing it safe. If they're not careful the whole industry will die under a pile of red tape and regulations before it's even really born.

Re:Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525959)

Or, other companies will show up, and the company that pulled this printer will lose business and people will be told to avoid it.

Printing Money (4, Insightful)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | about a year ago | (#41525559)

If you are leasing a color copier or press. They will pull the copier if your using it to print counterfet money. This is not censorship at all.

Re:Printing Money (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#41525651)

If you are leasing a color copier or press. They will pull the copier if your using it to print counterfet money. This is not censorship at all.

Slight problem with your analogy: Counterfeiting money is illegal, whereas manufacturing firearms for personal use (i.e. not for sale) is not.

Re:Printing Money (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525733)

If you are leasing a color copier or press. They will pull the copier if your using it to print counterfet money. This is not censorship at all.

So, in a business environment, if I have an idiot running around printing off $100 bills on all the color laser copiers we lease, the leasing vendor has the right to come in an confiscate every one of them, essentially crippling the entire business?

Somehow I seriously doubt that's the way it works. And if it is, then the leasing company shouldn't expect a return phone call or repeat business.

Punish the individual, not the resource.

Re:Printing Money (0)

Revotron (1115029) | about a year ago | (#41525907)

You'll already have been crippled by the Secret Service investigation.

I'm guessing you have no clue how legal liability works in a business environment.

Re:Printing Money (3, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year ago | (#41525993)

Printers tend to shut down when they detect currency. Often you need to call a technician to come reset the printer.

Re:Politics (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year ago | (#41525665)

I have seen a relatively stupid argument with people who support extreme gun control. If we stopped selling guns, then we won't have guns, it is not like they can make their own guns.

I pointed out how a lot of crimes are committed from hand made guns, and they can make a deadly gun with normal parts in their workshed. And by Banning legal guns, people who want to perform other crimes will still have guns.

Re:Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525819)

You'll see stupid arguments from people who support extreme anything. If you select for stupidity, that's what you get.

Re:Politics (1)

Doodlesmcpooh (1981178) | about a year ago | (#41525895)

All you need to make a gun is something to hold the bullet and something to hit the firing pin. Of course if you want more than one shot or some level or accuracy it gets a bit more complicated. In theory a pair of pliers to hold the bullet and a hammer with a pointy bit to hit the pin is all you need.

Re:Politics (2)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year ago | (#41525863)

In a related story, General [general.ca] is in the process of cancelling leases to all of its customer until they get firearms licences.

Need federal license (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525401)

You need a federal license to manufacture firearms in the US of A -- even for personal use.

Re:Need federal license (1)

future assassin (639396) | about a year ago | (#41525425)

Even toy guns?

Re:Need federal license (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525693)

For any gun that can kill a person, toy or not.

Re:Need federal license (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525881)

Even toy guns?

If it meets the requirements to be considered a firearm, then yes. Use something non-explosive (compressed gas) or don't fire a projectile and you won't run afoul of the authorities.

The real answer is... it's complicated. In some States you can make your own firearms with some limitations- they can't be distributed at all, personal use only, usually you can't use them for licensed sporting activities like Hunting, can't be a machine gun or military-grade weaponry, and stuff like that. Regardless of what you're doing, if you announce it publicly then you should expect a visit from the ATF and they'll explain the rules to you in precise detail. But possibly not quite as nicely.

Re:Need federal license (5, Informative)

tmosley (996283) | about a year ago | (#41525439)

No, you don't. You only need a license if you are manufacturing arms FOR SALE. People make homemade guns for fun all the time.

Re:Need federal license (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525453)

False:

Q: Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle?

        With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency.

        [18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general.html#gca-manufacturing [atf.gov]

Re:Need federal license (1)

sumdumgai (92866) | about a year ago | (#41525789)

This only applies to NFA firearms, which are machine guns or short barreled shotguns.

Re:Need federal license (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41526001)

Put simply, it's not nearly that simple. There are all kinds of strange laws which pile on top of this one law alone, and there are laws in each State which often further restrict your ability to make a firearm. Then you have to consider local ordinances- it may be legal to make a particular gun, but not if you do it within city limits, for example. Or maybe you are free to make them, but you have to take peculiar "safety" precautions... such as obtaining a hard-to-get permit from the authorities.

The best answer is that you're better off carefully examining the definition of a firearm and make something which doesn't fall under the same legal framework as a "real gun". You can do some pretty fun things with compressed gasses, for example. Magnets are also neat, if you know how they fucking work. (If you don't then you've probably spent your homework time learning to apply ghoulish facepaint instead)

Re:Need federal license (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525519)

No you don't.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html#commercial-parts-assembly

Q: Is it legal to assemble a firearm from commercially available parts kits that can be purchased via internet or shotgun news?

For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.

Printing Presses (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525409)

Hmmm.... reminiscent of the desire to suppress printing presses in order to inhibit revolutionary movements.

Re:Printing Presses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525717)

I hope you are aware that with a printing press you publish information, with a gun you kill people. There isn't any reminiscence really.

Re:Printing Presses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525821)

It's a good thing Mein Kampf and Silent Spring didn't result in ant deaths, then.

Schmuck.

Re:Printing Presses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525891)

any not ant.

Re:Printing Presses (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about a year ago | (#41525979)

I'm sure a few ants died too, though.

Re:Printing Presses (3, Insightful)

BoberFett (127537) | about a year ago | (#41525843)

Who was responsible for WW2 and the holocaust? Did that man personally kill millions or did he do it with the power of words? What is more dangerous, words or firearms?

Re:Printing Presses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525853)

> with a gun you kill people

That's not the only use of a gun. Moron.

Re:Printing Presses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525879)

I hope you are aware that with a printing press you publish information, with a gun you kill people. There isn't any reminiscence really.

One can't be overly concerned with comments from someone who writes "reminiscence" when (I suppose) they mean "resemblance".

And, I would be quick to note that many publications have resulted in deaths.

Overreaction. (1)

BMOC (2478408) | about a year ago | (#41525423)

He broke no law AFAIK. He created a portion of the gun that is regulated in commercial export/sale, not manufacture. He didn't even create the full gun with the printer, and his "gun" likely wasn't reliable enough to be considered dangerous to someone it's aiming at.

Re:Overreaction. (4, Interesting)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about a year ago | (#41525509)

Wired seemed to have a better write-up of potential legal angles:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/3d-gun-blocked/ [wired.com]

Regardless of legal angles, though, Stratasys made it clear that this is not what they want their machines used for, and that is that. If he bought it, it might be different - but he was basically just renting it. I'm sure he can get a different 3D printer to work with.

Re:Overreaction. (1)

BMOC (2478408) | about a year ago | (#41525597)

Wired mentions that it is illegal to manufacture sawed-off shotguns or machine guns. An automatic rifle is not a machine gun according the the law, afaik. They are a separate class of weapon. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Overreaction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525813)

1st. I'm not a lawyer. This isn't legal advice.

2nd. I think you mean "A Semi-Automatic Rifle is not a machine gun according to the law".

To make a machine gun (since it's after may of '86) you'd have to have an FFL with an SOT and have what's called a demonstration letter from your local LE.

You may make a short barreled shotgun as long as you've paid your excise tax and have gotten BATFE approval prior to doing so (your tax stamp for the gun).

As numerous posters have already stated, you may build a semi-auto rifle from scratch without an FFL as long as you're not doing it to sell it.

Re:Overreaction. (1)

icebrain (944107) | about a year ago | (#41525947)

More precisely:
The National Firearms Act of 1934 says that:
-rifles with a barrel less than 16" long, or less than 26" long overall
-shotguns with a barrel less than 18" long, or less than 28" long overall
-suppressors
-firearms that shoot more than one projectile with a single trigger action (i.e., machine guns--shotguns are excluded provided they only fire one shell at a time)

are illegal unless a $200 tax is paid, and the owner passes a background check. The Hughes amendment further states that it is illegal to manufacture a new machine gun for civilian, non law-enforcement use after 1987, and illegal to posess such a weapon.

Provided that you you file the appropriate paperwork with the feds, pay for your tax stamp, and you stay in line with your state's regulations, you can manufacture a suppressor, short-barreled rifle, or shotgun, or convert an existing "regular" weapon into a short-barreled version. But you still can't manufacture machine guns.

Now, a semi-automatic (one round per trigger pull; also called "autoloading) rifle or handgun is a different matter; those are just "normal" firearms, except for a few states with "assault weapon" (read: painted black and/or looks scary) bans. Some states also have restrictions on hunting with semiautomatic weapons.

Re:Overreaction. (5, Informative)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year ago | (#41525951)

An automatic rifle is not a machine gun according the the law, afaik. They are a separate class of weapon.

I believe that an "automatic rifle" means an auto-loading rifle which is the technical term for a "semi-automatic" weapon - i.e. the vast majority of rifles legally sold for civilian use in the modern area.

A "machine gun" is a fully automatic weapon and those are illegal for private individuals to own, period, unless they're made before 1986 and you've paid for a Federal "tax stamp," which I believe is $200 (I imagine they're still illegal for private citizens to own in certain jurisdictions; obviously, Kalifornia comes to mind). Corporations as well as certain manufacturers and dealers, however, can own fully automatic weapons made after 1986 but obviously certain rules apply.

The technical term for a "sawed-off" shotgun is an SBS (short-barreled shotgun) which is a smoothbore longarm with a barrel less than 18" in length (or, I believe, a total length - including the stock - of less than 26"). These also require a $200 "tax stamp" to the Feds.

Here's some additional useful info, from here [comcast.net] :

"Sporting" Purposes

Here's where things get a little tricky. Some rifles, such as the Saiga line, are imported for sporting purposes in a particular configuration. Generally, that means that do not incorporate any of the "evil" features that are typically associated with so-called "semi-automatic assault weapons". Chapter 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 478.11 defines these SAWs. You can read the law, here. Specific examples of these features include:

- High capacity (greater than 10 round for rifles, 5 rounds for shotgun) magazines
- Pistol grip attachment
- Folding buttstock
- Muzzle device/attachment (to include a threaded barrel capable of receiving a device)
- Bayonet lugs

If your rifle or shotgun incorporates those features, it no longer is considered "suitable for sporting purposes".

Assembling Semiauto Rifles and Shotguns

If your rifle or shotgun is subject to 922R, you must now make sure that it is in compliance with the regulations governing the assembly of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. That is covered in Title 27 Chapter 1 Section 178.39. Click here to see the text of the law. It states :

(a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph (c) of this section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

Paragraph (C) defines the following parts as "countable" under the law:

(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings or stampings *
(2) Barrels *
(3) Barrel extensions
(4) Mounting blocks (trunions) *
(5) Muzzle attachments *
(6) Bolts *
(7) Bolt carriers *
(8) Operating rods
(9) Gas pistons *
(10) Trigger housings
(11) Triggers *
(12) Hammers *
(13) Sears
(14) Disconnectors *
(15) Buttstocks *
(16) Pistol grips *
(17) Forearms, handguards *
(18) Magazine bodies *
(19) Followers *
(20) Floorplates *

These 20 items are referred to with the term "compliance parts". There are lots of other components that go into a weapon, but there are the only ones that count in terms of complying with the law.

Re:Overreaction. (1)

sumdumgai (92866) | about a year ago | (#41525999)

I think you are confusing automatic with semi-automatic. An automatic rifle is a machine gun. A semi-automatic is not.

Re:Overreaction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525927)

Unless their lease specifically includes a clause whereby they can dictate (beyond reason -- they can obviously protect their property from damage) the use of their machine while under lease, and you'd be a fool to sign such a document, then they need to STFU and GTFO. If you want to exert total control over your property, then don't relinquish use rights in the form of a rental or lease agreement. To do otherwise is simple theft to anyone with a shred of moral decency.

Re:Overreaction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525515)

Plastic lowers are fine, they do not significatly impact the reliability of an AR.
It just holds the metal bits.

Re:Overreaction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525767)

Plastic lowers are fine, they do not significatly impact the reliability of an AR.
It just holds the metal bits.

Exactly. And what kills me about all this hype over "printed" guns is Cavalry Arms has been manufacturing polymer lowers for years.

Re:Overreaction. (1)

hAckz0r (989977) | about a year ago | (#41525797)

I'm pretty sure that it's illegal to produce hand grenades in most any state in the union. Given your own stated reluctance on the reliability factor of the firing chamber in this proposed gun, exactly what is the difference? Oh, my mistake, you don't throw this one.

.
Yes there is a high probability that the person being pointed at will feel your anger, but then those whom would otherwise be innocent bystanders, standing perpendicular to the firing chamber, are also subject to "an accident". There in lye the problem with not being licensed to manufacture firearms.

I don't disbelieve in the right for an educated person (e.g. trained and licensed to prove they were certified) to have a firearm for a particular purpose, or even manufacture firearms, but we have to draw lines in the sand when it comes to "safety", as the main method of calibration. Someone that unintentionally puts others lives in danger through 'sheer stupidity' should not have their constitutional rights prevail over those who are not risk takers. One persons right to "live" trumps another persons right to blow themselves up. Sure, if you want to blow yourself up in the privacy of your own home, have to it. Just don't do it around others who don't get into that sort of thing.

The key here is safety. These guns are not safe, and someone building their first one off their brand new 3D printer won't have a clue what they are doing. Training should be mandatory.

Re:Overreaction. (1)

BMOC (2478408) | about a year ago | (#41525909)

1) You can't make a plastic firing chamber, that's not what he did.
2) I could apply all of the rest of your argument to parenting, but we don't educate and license parents.
3) We're completely off topic.

You Can't Print a Gun If You Have No 3D Printer (2, Funny)

Stargoat (658863) | about a year ago | (#41525459)

You Can't Print a Gun If You Have No 3D Printer, How Can You Print a Gun If You Have No 3D Printer. You, Yes You Behind The Bike Shed, Stand Still Laddie!

Re:You Can't Print a Gun If You Have No 3D Printer (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year ago | (#41525525)

You Can't Print a Gun If You Have No 3D Printer, How Can You Print a Gun If You Have No 3D Printer. You, Yes You Behind The Bike Shed, Stand Still Laddie!

Did you exchange a walk on part in the war, for the lead role in a (3D printed) cage?

Re:You Can't Print a Gun If You Have No 3D Printer (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year ago | (#41525649)

can I still have some pudding even though I didn't eat my meat?

It's not just having the 3D printer that matters (0)

jimbodude (2445520) | about a year ago | (#41525471)

You also need the right materials. Not just anything can be a gun barrel. I'm not a fan of bans, but perhaps the best compromise in this situation is to ban the 3D printable materials that could be formed into guns, not the printers, plans, and other 3D printable materials.

Re:It's not just having the 3D printer that matter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525619)

They're only trying to manufacture the lower receiver; everything else (barrel, bolt, chamber, whatever) is just a "gun part" that you can buy off the Internet or whatever easily. The lower receiver is the part that counts as the "gun". (Some part has to, in order to settle Theseus' paradox.) On an AR-15, this part is subject to very little stress and could conceivably be made of a sturdy plastic.

Re:It's not just having the 3D printer that matter (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#41525739)

They're only trying to manufacture the lower receiver; everything else (barrel, bolt, chamber, whatever) is just a "gun part" that you can buy off the Internet or whatever easily.

Assuming you're talking about the contest, that is incorrect - the idea is to have a 100% printed gun that can fire at least 1 round of .22 caliber ammo without catastrophic failure.

Re:It's not just having the 3D printer that matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525977)

without catastrophic failure.

That will be the tricky part. I do not see the sorts of processes that are being used to do this working for guns for awhile. The layer separation would probably kill the user dead. If an inch and a halfer can take off a finger if you close it in your hand think of what a 22 cart will do jammed in a plastic barrel stuck behind a piece of lead and weak plastic.

To make a proper gun that will not take off your hand you will want a forge or a process that does not create weakness in the plastic.

Re:It's not just having the 3D printer that matter (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year ago | (#41525899)

You also need the right materials. Not just anything can be a gun barrel. I'm not a fan of bans, but perhaps the best compromise in this situation is to ban the 3D printable materials that could be formed into guns, not the printers, plans, and other 3D printable materials.

They weren't printing gun barrels, plus your plan would outrule aluminum, steel, iron, carbon, any hard plastics and so on. Guess how well that would fly?

Machine tools (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525473)

How is a 3D printer any different than a lathe, grinder or a milling machine?

Re:Machine tools (5, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year ago | (#41525677)

lathes, grinders and millers all are subtractive processes.

the 3d printer is additi-

oh wait, you didn't meant it that way, did you?

Re:Machine tools (5, Funny)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year ago | (#41525691)

If you make a gun with a lathe, grinder, and milling machine, the gun will actually work.

Re:Machine tools (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525771)

You can build less of the actual gun with a 3-d printer

Re:Machine tools (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year ago | (#41525783)

How is a 3D printer any different than a lathe, grinder or a milling machine?

Its not. Its standard lease terms that

1) We are not taking the fall in a conspiracy rap so officially we will not rent for illegal purposes. Often there's something along the lines of if we figure out you're a crook we reserve the right to violate privacy and turn you to the authorities in addition to cancelling the lease contract.

2) We have no desire to see our rentable machine rot in a federal evidence vault, unrented, for a decade or so as evidence while your trial grinds on, so doing something illegal, or even planning to do so, means the lease is broken.

Assuming you've rented anything like housing, cars, electronic tools ($150K spectrum analyzer, etc) or machine tools as you listed, you've probably signed off on this in the fine print.

Defensive play (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525479)

If you read between the lines of Stratasys' statement, the company's president clearly says:

"For the love of god please don't give us this kind of press. If we don't shut this down now I'm going to have Homeland Security on, over and in my ass. Don't ever use gun and printed in the same sentence again. My hands are too delicate for jail. Why are you doing this to me?"

Re:Defensive play (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about a year ago | (#41525745)

Good God, a statement from a CEO unclouded by lawyer speak!

Kudos to that guy for cutting through the crap!

Re:Defensive play (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about a year ago | (#41525779)

He'd like to continue selling the machines without Mountians of paperwork.

I can see the laws being drafted right now... To turn these into big "Cricut" machines, that are DRM'D to heck and only print LICENSED models from cartridges...

Seriously, who's bright idea was this to plaster 3d printed gun parts all over the geek news???

Re:Defensive play (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year ago | (#41525911)

If you read between the lines of Stratasys' statement, the company's president clearly says:

"For the love of god please don't give us this kind of press. If we don't shut this down now I'm going to have Homeland Security on, over and in my ass. Don't ever use gun and printed in the same sentence again. My hands are too delicate for jail. Why are you doing this to me?"

So....Dell should be paranoid over selling computers because someone might run across child porn on them?

Budweiser should be paranoid over selling beer because someone might drive drunk?

Smith and Wesson should be paranoid over selling firearms because they might be used in a murder instead of self-defense?

I could clearly cite dozens of examples to the contrary of the presidents statement, but instead I'll simply read between the lines and state this to him:

Grow a pair and learn the laws. Otherwise, you'll never make it in American business. Never.

In my state... (2)

bsharp8256 (1372285) | about a year ago | (#41525485)

It's against federal law to make a machine gun. In Tennessee, as long as he doesn't break any federal laws, he can do whatever he wants without the federal license, but he cannot he doesn't sell what he produces. If he keeps it personally, he isn't even required to put a serial number on the receiver. If he wants to sell it at a later time, however, he's required put a serial on it, and he also may invoke the wrath of the ATF. It's said that you can sell a reasonable number of homemade firearms per year without requiring the manufacturer's license, but I believe that reasonable number is arbitrarily set by the ATF agents.

Disclaimer: I've never made my own firearm, and if I did, I certainly wouldn't sell it; between the risk of federal prison and liability if it blows up, if I had to get rid of the thing, it would be destroyed.

Re:In my state... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525683)

I don't always make my own firearms, but when I do, I prefer MakerBot.

Its a shame... (2)

Atrophis (103390) | about a year ago | (#41525511)

that the laws of our country create an environment such that being an independent entrepreneur or even trying to innovate becomes a task in federal paper work and bills. As far as I can tell, hes not even trying to manufacture to sell, but has already run afoul of red tape and bureaucratic question marks. Good to see government working for us, again. /sarcasm

Re:Its a shame... (1, Insightful)

Cid Highwind (9258) | about a year ago | (#41525695)

Oh the internet armchair libertarian brigade. Even when it's private enterprise infringing someone's rights, they rant about the government.

The "we don't have a license" angle is a diversion. This is all about Stratasys PR department not wanting a product they market to creative types to be linked in the public mind with the sort of firearms neckbeards that print AR lowers in their garages.

Re:Its a shame... (1)

Atrophis (103390) | about a year ago | (#41525939)

Great. Show me where Cody Wilson's project infringed someones rights.

mod 04 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525531)

Should have made a backup (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | about a year ago | (#41525535)

The first thing you should print when you get a 3d printer, is another 3d printer.

Re:Should have made a backup (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year ago | (#41525705)

if wishes brought 3d printers, could you then use that 3d printer to create more wishes??

Re:Should have made a backup (1)

Torodung (31985) | about a year ago | (#41525851)

Ah, like the first scroll I write with my blessed magic marker is a blessed scroll of charging. Then another for the Wand of Wishing (0:3), so I can wish for another magic marker, and write another scroll of charging for that one. LOL.

No wishing for more wishes. You also can't wish someone dead. You can probably print love, though, in a sense.

So before he returned the printer ... (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about a year ago | (#41525585)

Did he get it to print another printer ? :-)

Pity printers are not quite up to that yet but, when they are, I wonder what devastation it would cause to manufacturing industries ? What if you could print yourself a new toilet, kitchen appliance, ... would people buy them from shops ? It depends on the costs of printing to the costs of buying a made item from the shop. Some items are never going to be printable, eg: CPUs and items requiring high strength (famous last words).

Re:So before he returned the printer ... (1)

vlm (69642) | about a year ago | (#41525925)

Pity printers are not quite up to that yet

See the reprap project

It depends on the costs of printing to the costs of buying a made item from the shop.

Any product over $50/Kg or so is a dead man walking today, right now. DnD miniature manufacturers should be Very nervous. On the other hand as I recall the shipping crate for my new home toilet, that was only about a buck per pound, (Its shocking how heavy a toilet is, somehow I thought it would be as light as a dining room chair) so that's safe for well over an order of magnitude of decreasing price. Now the little plastic handles on the bathroom faucets that cost $5 for a fraction of an ounce, they're toast. The business model where the handle that broke on my toilet that only costs $20 for a new handle and trip lever arm is toast, value engineered to fail annually, that is toast.

To a first approximation it'll never be all that much cheaper to turn pellets into filament that it'll be to turn pellets into injection molded stuff. So if a mfgr can keep his profit, R+D, and overhead costs reasonable, they'll never be put of out business by printing. Example: Cheap disposable plastic drinking cup is never going to cost much more than the cost of plastic to make it.

Probably a liability reaction (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525591)

I doubt very much this is any move against Cody Wilson on a censorship/anti-gunownership level. Far more likely Stratasys went "holy crap someone could sue the living daylights out of us for making guns without a license"

Think about how litigation happy we are in the US - imagine someone using a 3D printer to print something dangerous, and getting hurt. Especially imagine if it's a little kid. It doesn't matter that the printer manufacturer in a logical, sane world is clearly not responsible - they'd be utterly destroyed in the current court climate. This probably hit Stratasys in the face and their legal team said "FULL STOP GUYS"

Re:Probably a liability reaction (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#41525799)

I doubt very much this is any move against Cody Wilson on a censorship/anti-gunownership level. Far more likely Stratasys went "holy crap someone could sue the living daylights out of us for making guns without a license"

Think about how litigation happy we are in the US - imagine someone using a 3D printer to print something dangerous, and getting hurt. Especially imagine if it's a little kid. It doesn't matter that the printer manufacturer in a logical, sane world is clearly not responsible - they'd be utterly destroyed in the current court climate. This probably hit Stratasys in the face and their legal team said "FULL STOP GUYS"

Yea, like how every time someone gets shot and killed during a criminal action, another gun manufacturer goes under due to being sued as an accessory to the crime.

Or, you know, you're obviously clueless, and should avoid speaking on topics you know nothing about.

It's like the old adage... (3, Insightful)

vmxeo (173325) | about a year ago | (#41525607)

When all 3d printers are outlawed, only outlaws won't care because they will still have ready access to guns through illicit channels

...or something to that effect

Guns are for Pussies. (-1, Troll)

zenlessyank (748553) | about a year ago | (#41525613)

Guns are for spineless redneck inbred faggots. Bring your gay ass gun over and I will run you over with my car, which is a STEERABLE bullet. With reverse.

Their repossession is probably illegal (0)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year ago | (#41525621)

Their repossession is probably illegal, or contract breach anyway.
At least done under "false claims / terms."

Re:Their repossession is probably illegal (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | about a year ago | (#41525931)

Their repossession is probably illegal, or contract breach anyway. At least done under "false claims / terms."

Yeah, I suspect the same thing. Maybe he also got his money back for the unused term of the lease. I expect that might be legal.

What I find amusing and also quite irritating is the barely suppressed gleeful tone of the article. It's clear where the article writer's sentiment lies.

The lesson here is that you should own your own stuff. No DRM, no Apple overlord deciding what you should and shouldn't be able to install, no leases, even if the lease term is a single payment for a lease in perpetuity. You should own it, it should be yours to do exactly and precisely what you want with.

Re:Their repossession is probably illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525981)

Oh, hark at the armchair lawyers. Of course it's not illegal, and without reading the contract there's no way to tell if it's a breach.

You should own it

So save up and buy it. Sheesh.

You Think This Is Bad? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525631)

If you think this is bad, wait until someone successfully prints an album.

Re:You Think This Is Bad? (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | about a year ago | (#41525811)

Or graven images of "The Mouse".

Re:You Think This Is Bad? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year ago | (#41525827)

If you think this is bad, wait until someone successfully prints an album.

Do those things have high enough resolution to print an audible record?

Enough Led Zepplin already (1)

Dareth (47614) | about a year ago | (#41525871)

I believe the world has enough Led Zepplin without people printing Vinyl Stairways to Heaven.

Here's the Federal Law: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525635)

From the ATF FAQ (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/general.html#gca-manufacturing): Q: Does the GCA [Gun Control Act] prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle? [A:] With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency. [18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]. NOTE BY POSTER: But sure as hell wouldn't do it.

But what if (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525655)

But what if the Muzzies get hold of one?

Should have... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525671)

He should have printed himself a spare 3D printer while he had the chance.

I cant print a gun without a 3D printer... (2)

M4n (1472737) | about a year ago | (#41525755)

But I could get a 3D printer if I had a gun. What a farking quandary!

Couldn't this have waited? (1)

Phasma Felis (582975) | about a year ago | (#41525817)

Couldn't these guys have waited just a few years, until 3D printing is popular and ubiquitous? Instead, they've handed the feds a silver-platter excuse to preemptively regulate the hell of it while it's still a novelty item.

Thanks, assholes. You've destroyed a world-changing technology because you just couldn't wait one more second to own shitty, worthless plastic guns. Great job.

But you can machine one if you have a CNC mill. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about a year ago | (#41525823)

And it will actually work.

well the obvious solution is to... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525825)

print a 3D printer, that prints a firearm

Dang (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525839)

How I'm gonna shot everyone in my school now?

New Technology! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41525877)

How can we use it to kill things?

the ammo (3, Insightful)

amoeba1911 (978485) | about a year ago | (#41525975)

I never understood the hoopla about the whole gun thing... the ammo is the part that does the actual launching of the bullet, the gun is just to hold the ammo+bullet together while they're being fired.

It's kinda like putting serial numbers on hypodermic needles and making heroin legal enough to sell at Walmart.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>