Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Makerbot Cracks Down On 3D-Printable Gun Parts

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the right-to-print-arms dept.

Hardware Hacking 528

Sparrowvsrevolution writes in with a story at Forbes about Makerbot deleting gun component blueprints on Thingiverse. "In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut shootings, the 3D-printing firm Makerbot has deleted a collection of blueprints for gun components from Thingiverse, its popular user-generated content website that hosts 3D-printable files. Though Thingiverse has long banned designs for weapons and their components in its terms of service, it rarely enforced the rule until the last few days, when the company's lawyer sent notices to users that their software models for gun parts were being purged from the site. Gun control advocates were especially concerned about the appearance of lower receivers for semi-automatic weapons that have appeared on Thingiverse. The lower receiver is the the 'body' of a gun, and its most regulated component. So 3D-printing that piece at home and attaching other parts ordered by mail might allow a lethal weapon to be obtained without any legal barriers or identification. Makerbot's move to delete those files may have been inspired in part by a group calling itself Defense Distributed, which announced its intention to create an entirely 3D-printable gun in August and planned to potentially upload it to Thingiverse. Defense Distributed says it's not deterred by Makerbot's move and will host the plans on its own site."

cancel ×

528 comments

One does not simply (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346543)

remove something from the internet.

Re:One does not simply (4, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346775)

No, but they can remove it from the database they control and host. I do not get the impression they are trying to wipe the concept out, they have just decided that they will not allow such devices on their privately run service.

Re:One does not simply (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346841)

Are you a politician? I'm curious because you don't seem to let the facts get in the way of your biased opinion. The man said nothing even suggesting they couldn't or shouldn't remove it from their own database or that they were trying to wipe out the concept. He merely noted that one does not simply remove something from the internet.

Re:One does not simply (3, Insightful)

JosKarith (757063) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346911)

Apparently you are a politician from your skill at taking two statements that don't contradict each other and trying to create an argument from them.

Re:One does not simply (4, Insightful)

guises (2423402) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346849)

No, but you can remove something from Thingiverse. If your objective is dissociate yourself from the ideology, rather than eliminate the information altogether, than this is effective.

They'd be idiots not to (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346545)

However they feel about gun parts personally, being involved in distributing them could one day be a very bad thing. It's best to leave that to special-purpose sites.

so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (4, Insightful)

decora (1710862) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346767)

before this latest school shooting they really did not care. there has been an AR-15 receiver up on thingiverse for more than a year.
and there have been several school shootings in that time.

thingiverse even conducted a poll a few months back, the subject was whether or not users wanted to allow weapons on the site. i dont know the result of the poll, but the practical effect was nothing - they left those items up.

now all of a sudden they took them down.

nevermind 30+ children died today in automobile accidents (statistical average).

Re:so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346825)

> nevermind 30+ children died today in automobile accidents (statistical average).

Exactly /accidents/. I'm sure if guns were fired as often as car engines, there would be an equal amount of gun accidents. Fortunately we don't need a gun to get to work.

Re:so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (3, Insightful)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346847)

Car accidents are rarely accidents

Re:so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (1)

bhartman34 (886109) | about a year and a half ago | (#42347069)

Car accidents are rarely accidents

[Citation needed.]

Re:so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346913)

must be nice not to live in detroit

Re:so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346933)

nevermind 30+ children died today in automobile accidents

I've never understood this. Something is dangerous, so we should ignore this other dangerous thing?

Car manufacturers and road safety have steadily made cars safer and accidents less dangerous over the previous decades. Applying this to your reasoning, we should clearly be doing the same thing for firearms, right?

Re:so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (2)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346997)

And automobile deaths are on the rise while school shootings are getting more rare over the last 25 years.

Re:so before Sandy Point, they were idiots? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42347063)

You are flat-out wrong. Automobile deaths have been steadily decreasing since 2005.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year [wikipedia.org]

Defense (0, Flamebait)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346555)

a group calling itself Defense Distributed, which announced its intention to create an entirely 3D-printable gun

Shields and armor are defensive, guns aren't.

Re:Defense (0)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346579)

I find it kind of funny that most gun groups attach the terms "freedom" and "liberty" to their names in an attempt to say "If you don't have a gun you don't have libitry and you're not free".

How does that line from 1984 go again: "War is peace, Freedom is slavery, Ignorance is strength" or something like that

Re:Defense (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346627)

Replace the first "don't" with "can't" and the statement is absolutely correct.

"If you can't have a gun you don't have liberty and you're not free."

Re:Defense (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346703)

Replace "gun" with "nuke" and you see how absurd it goes.

Re:Defense (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346725)

You could also say allowing access to a potato gun satisfies the statement and there for access to guns that shoot bullets isn't needed.

Re:Defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346993)

Yeah, that's really absurd.

That is a stupid sentence (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346957)

I can't have a gun and I am essentially as free in my freedom of speech, hability to pursue happiness than most american. Actually more free since I may smoke pot without a problem, or even solicit sex for money and not be arrested. The only freedom I don't have is gun possession, and if you pretend that makes me NOT free, then youbeing forbidden to possess anything forbidden in USA, like say, an atom bomb even if you had the echnical possibility, or any myriad of forbiden substance, makes you NOT free. So really that sentence is utterly misleading. As for fighting against a governement, you are going to use against battle armored soldier or police... How ?

Re:Defense (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346587)

What a dumb thing to say. You're a dumb person.

Re:Defense (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346621)

Well I tell you, I don't even espouse your level of gun control and am shouted down as a "gun grabbing libtard".... simply because I believe a six shooter revolver is enough (far more than enough actually) for personal defense, and that assault weapons be heavily regulated and controlled (not even banned).

Re:Defense (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346661)

"Assault weapons" is a nonsense term. It's an appeal to emotion, not reason. "Ban the scaaaary guns!" You want tighter gun controls? Fine by me. But banning "assault weapons" is just cheap theater by politicians so that they can appear to be doing something instead of doing their best to not even think about causes or symptoms.

Re:Defense (4, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346801)

'Assualt Weapons" are probably the most cynical bit of bi-partisan political theory I have seen in decades.... on the gun control side they are likely fully aware that such weapons make up such a tiny percentage of gun deaths per year that restrictions on them are unlikely to have any significant impact.. and on the gun freedom side they are likely fully aware that the way the ban (in the past) was written it was so easy to circumvent that manufacturers barely skipped a beat.

So on the one side you have politicians supporting a bill that does nothing, and on the other side you have politicians supporting a bill that,.,. ahm.. does nothing. Yet it is a good way to energize their bases and score political points.

Re:Defense (4, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346727)

Problem is Assault weapons ARE already heavily controlled. You have to have a Class 3 license to buy assault rifles.

An AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon. It does not have select fire and is only a single shot semi automatic rifle.

Calling these assault rifles it like pointing at a car and calling it a truck.

here is one that will make you wig out. I can buy WITHOUT A LICENSE a fully automatic high rate of fire Gatling gun or machine gun. If it was made before 1986 It's legal to own without any permit or license.

I can also build and own a FLAME THROWER without a license.

Banning Semi automatic modular rifles will solve nothing. It was already proven that this does not work, it's why the previous ban was overturned.

Re:Defense (1)

jythie (914043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346807)

Are you sure about that? Last I heard Gatling guns were only legally purchaceable if they were hand cranked, anything with a motor was illegal to own.

Re:Defense (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346977)

I can think of no way to jury rig a motor onto a hand crank mechanism.

Re:Defense (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346811)

Calling these assault rifles it like pointing at a car and calling it a truck.

To be fair, we do exactly that with SUVs.

Re:Defense (1, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346935)

Douche Canoes.

Re:Defense (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42347027)

Dang Android phone....

I meant to say, SUV's are typically called "Douche Canoes" around here from how most of them are driven around others.

Re:Defense (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346819)

> If it was made before 1986 It's legal to own without any permit or license.

Bullshit. Pre-86 machine guns are regulated under the NFA and require extensive paperwork with the ATF, extra background checks, waiting periods that run 6 mo to over a year, tax stamps, chief LEO sign-off, and other requirements in order to own.

what? (4, Interesting)

nten (709128) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346821)

All firearms which fire more than one bullet when the trigger is depressed can only be purchased by non law enforcement if they were manufactured prior to 1986 *and* the class 3 forms and background checks have been done. Doing the class 3 forms won't let you get a newer full auto, and just because its old doesn't mean you don't need the paperwork.

People complain about the amount of misinformation, but it would help if the laws weren't so complicated. Get rid of the NFA, suppressors are just hearing protection, full-autos are a novelty that would loose their appeal if they were easy to get, and short barrelled rifles and shotguns aren't significantly more deadly than any other firearm.

Re:Defense (1)

asylumx (881307) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346835)

An AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon

The AR-15 was designed for military use. What on earth do you think the military planned to do with it -- go deer hunting?

Re:Defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346953)

Change out the plastic bits and put a different stock on it and voila it is a hunting rifle.

The difference between many 'assault weapons' and 'hunting rifles' is the trim.

Re:Defense (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346963)

No it was not. The AR-15 is not a military weapon. Do you even know anything about that gun platform?

The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.[8] Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are independently made, modified and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers.

Re:Defense (1)

asylumx (881307) | about a year and a half ago | (#42347065)

The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces.

Wikipedia may not be perfect, but I have a lot more faith in it than I do in you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Defense (5, Informative)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346983)

My girlfriend's father's Zastava M48 (a post-war Eastern European copy of the Mauser 98K) and my family's Lorenz rifled musket were both designed for military use. In fact, both are more powerful than an AR-15 (the first shoots 8mm Mauser, the second is .54 caliber). The only difference is, these guns don't look "scary"; wood furniture instead of plastic, no pistol grip (they both have bayonet lugs; in fact many mid-century military firearms such as Mosin Nagants are actually sold WITH the bayonet, and only cost about $100 depending on the market). Hell, a decent marksman with a bolt-action rifle could do a lot more damage than this kid did. This is all a knee-jerk reaction based solely upon looks, not capability.

And actually, yes, there are numerous hunting variants of AR-15s. Most come with 5 round mags, have no front sight, and have a different barrel and furniture and don't look at all "tactical"

Re:Defense (0)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346863)

so the General Electric XM134 minigun (as seen in Predator) is a legal weapon! w00t!

At least the wimpy antisocial loners who seem to be the ones shooting up their schools won't be able to lift it, so I guess it is a safe option there.

Re:Defense (1, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346981)

And it will cost you upwards of $100,000 to buy the weapon and the cost for ammunition is astronomical due to it's rate of fire. A lot of rich men own these weapons.

And if guns make people kill, why don't we see these rich guys mowing people down in malls?

Re:Defense (1)

need4mospd (1146215) | about a year and a half ago | (#42347037)

Another reason most uneducated people think it's an assault rifle is because they assume AR stands for assault rifle.

Re:Defense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346625)

You don't seem to understand the concept of a deterrent. Guns are defensive.

Re:Defense (2)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346643)

The Defense Department disagrees.

Re:Defense (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346985)

"No Department of Defense ever won a war"-Juan Rico, Starship Troopers

Re:Defense (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346815)

well, I think a gun barrel made of layers of resin will work fine - go ahead guys, be sure to test it yourselves first though.

Tax evasion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346559)

The National Firearms Act says that you can't make a "firearm" without a tax payment. I'm sure this is more about tax evasion than safety.

What this will do long term is make the gun control debate a mute point. If bad guys can print guns anyways (illegal or not) then why prevent law abiding citizens from buying guns legally to protect themselves?

Re:Tax evasion (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346613)

You probably won't read this but I can only hope to educate someone else. It's a MOOT point, not a MUTE point. Seriously.

Re:Tax evasion (4, Insightful)

WillAdams (45638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346615)

The National Firearms Act (27 CFR, Part 479) is only about:

  - fully automatic weapons
  - short barreled rifes and shotguns
  - silencers
  - ``any other weapons'' / destructive devices

It does _not_ apply to typical pistols, rifles or shotguns.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-1.pdf [atf.gov]

``c. Firearm. The term “firearm” means: (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 5845 (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) a muffler or a silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition; and (8) a destructive device.''

Please note that felons are exempt from paying this $200 ``tax'' --- it's imposed only on honest, law-abiding citizens.

Re:Tax evasion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346645)

Please note that felons are exempt from paying this $200 ``tax''

Exempt. Word does not mean what you think it means. See e.g. Al Capone.

Re:Tax evasion (1)

WillAdams (45638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346949)

Al Capone was jailed for income tax evasion, not for paying a tax which didn't exist when he was arrested.

Re:Tax evasion (1)

dpilot (134227) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346805)

Out of curiosity, what would be the implications of building a railgun or coilgun? (I suspect building/firing a railgun would be difficult as a hobby pursuit, hence the coilgun option.) Looking at this more as an interesting piece of technology than a 2nd amendment exercise.

What if one called a coilgun a "launch device" instead of a "gun"? Kind of like the way a model rocket could be a weapon of launched in a different direction.

Re:Tax evasion (1)

WillAdams (45638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346999)

You would run into licensing issues associated w/ airguns of a certain power / muzzle velocity, depending on your locale.

Re:Tax evasion (2)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year and a half ago | (#42347077)

Depends on one's perspective. I have no problem with the government demanding my neighbours demonstrate a minimum level of safety and competence in constructing and possessing devices which are capable of endangering me and my property.

I mean if you build a railgun with a mean kinetic energy above that of a rifle round, well hell, I'd really like to see a requirement to register the existence of such a thing and keep it properly stored and backstopped.

Re:Tax evasion (2)

bmxeroh (1694004) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346663)

No, it doesn't. The NFA imposes a tax on the manufacture or transfer of CERTAIN firearms, namely anything full-auto, a short barreled rifle (under 16"), a short barreled shotgun, silencers, and other explosive devices. However, I agree with your second statement. Further more, the particular regulations they always start talking about, (limited capacity magazines, etc) don't make any difference in the real world.

why should bars have bouncers? (2)

decora (1710862) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346715)

thingiverse is a private organization, they can do whatever they want.

its called 'freedom'.

if you want to have a publicly funded 3d printing website that has AR-15 receivers and AK-47 bodies, you are 100% free to do so. . . you can even host it in a non-US country if you are worried about US firearms laws. I hear Somalia is very lenient towards the promulgation of AK-47s.

Re:why should bars have bouncers? (1)

acidfast7 (551610) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346925)

with "freedom" comes responsibility.

Re:Tax evasion (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346719)

a mute point

That poor little point.
Now it has to learn sign language.

Call the ATF on them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346561)

They probably need to know what Defense Distributed is up to, if they aren't already investigating them.

Except that it is a felony (1, Interesting)

cide1 (126814) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346591)

"The lower receiver is the the 'body' of a gun, and its most regulated component. So 3D-printing that piece at home and attaching other parts ordered by mail might allow a lethal weapon to be obtained without any legal barriers or identification." This is true, but to print a receiver without a federal firearms manufacturing license is a felony. I can mill one out of aluminum without a 3d printer, it would last a lot longer, but that doesn't make it legal. In general, most "bad" things that people can do with a firearm, are already illegal.

Re:Except that it is a felony (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346653)

It's perfectly legal to manufacture a weapon for personal use. I can't cite a reference, since there's no law or regulation which specifically says you may. You'll have to cite something which says it's illegal, and you won't find anything.

Re:Except that it is a felony (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346677)

Not true. You are allowed to make the serialized part (the lower receiver, in the case of an AR-15) so long as it's not for sale. I've milled several out of aluminum for custom target & hunting rifles with the full blessing of local law enforcement and BATFE offices.

Re:Except that it is a felony (3, Informative)

hsmith (818216) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346679)

Oh misinformation how i love you. It is legal to make your OWN guns (not full auto) - but it is illegal to SELL them. You can mill all the gun parts you want to keep for yourself (again, sans the NFA firearms). It becomes illegal when you try to sell it.

Re:Except that it is a felony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346683)

This is true, but to print a receiver without a federal firearms manufacturing license is a felony. I can mill one out of aluminum without a 3d printer, it would last a lot longer, but that doesn't make it legal.

In general, most "bad" things that people can do with a firearm, are already illegal.

You have access to Google, like the rest of us, you don't need to make things up to appear knowledgeable on a subject.

Click here for unregistered 80% complete AR-15 lower receiver laws [tacticalmachining.com]

Doing this is easy with a milling machine, and completely legal. You can even do it with an $80 drill press with some patience and a $10 milling bit.

not exactly (3, Informative)

nten (709128) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346689)

You only have to have a manufacturing license if you wish to transfer the created firearm to another party. You can make any firearm you want as long as it does not fall under the NFA (can not be easily modified to fire more than one bullet per trigger pull, is not intentionally quieted, etc.), and you do not give it to anyone else. There is a large market in 80% complete receivers. You buy a piece of metal then bend and drill it a bit with a vice and drill press and you have an AK receiver. Order the rest online with no checks. You can also get almost finished aluminium blanks for AR receivers and mill them as you said.

You are correct in saying that most bad things people can do with a firearm are illegal. Making a firearm isn't a bad thing. Make as many as you like, just don't kill people with them.

Re:Except that it is a felony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346695)

I don't think so [cnet.com]

Re:Except that it is a felony (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346709)

That isn't the case. The Federal government does not prohibit non-individuals from producing firearms for their personal use, and I'd posit that they can;t because they don't have the authority to do so. States can and some do. Others, such as Montana, have legislation specifically to protect individuals doing the above, even when those firearms are offered for sale inside the state of Montana and to other Montana residents.

Re:Except that it is a felony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346735)

Of course I meant "non-licensees" rather than "non-individuals".

Re:Except that it is a felony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346721)

Its only a felony once you sell it. Educate your self on the subject before you post next time.

Re:Except that it is a felony (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346741)

This is true, but to print a receiver without a federal firearms manufacturing license is a felony. I can mill one out of aluminum without a 3d printer, it would last a lot longer, but that doesn't make it legal.

That makes it absolutely legal. You can build any weapon that your personal capabilities allaw, provided that is not a "destructive device" (aka: BFG) and only fires one bullet every time the trigger pulled. The lower *is* the firearm, as far as the ATF is concerned; so if you can mill it, you can build it, and it's legal.

Re:Except that it is a felony (4, Informative)

bmxeroh (1694004) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346763)

See my post above. Long story short, you're wrong. It is not illegal to manufacture your own firearm as long as it isn't a NFA regulated gun (full-auto, silencer, few other restrictions), AND you don't build it with the intentions of selling it. From the ATF website:

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. The GCA, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(3), defines the term “firearm” to include the following: (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive: (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

Re:Except that it is a felony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346771)

Actually producing a firearm as defined by BATF for your own personal use and NOT for resale is legal, as long as it does not fall under restricted weapons such as full auto or SBR restrictions. From their website: 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.

Re:Except that it is a felony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346789)

This is true, but to print a receiver without a federal firearms manufacturing license is a felony.

You don't need an FFL if you're manufacturing it for your own personal use. There are even companies that sell 80% finished receivers (which aren't considered guns) with the intention of having the purchaser finish the machining. This is nothing new.

Re:Except that it is a felony (3, Informative)

billybobbubbasmith (1079013) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346793)

it is in no way a felony for someone to make(Including print) their own firearm. the problem comes if you try to sell that firearm.
from the atf website:
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.

Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future.


http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html [atf.gov]

Hurr durr libertarians (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346593)

Queue slashdot's huge contingent of whacky libertarians explaining how its their right to fab these things to prepare for getting food when society breaks down.

Re:Hurr durr libertarians (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346651)

A QUEUE is when you line up for service. A CUE is a signal for someone to say their line.

Re:Hurr durr libertarians (4, Funny)

cvtan (752695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346853)

Your distinguishing between queue and cue is a mute point.

Sudden outbreak of common sense (-1, Flamebait)

paylett (553168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346617)

Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* print their own lethal weapon.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346669)

That depends how shitful your government or neighbourhood is

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346671)

It's not like they are actually stopping it, it will happen either way, this way at least people notice and aren't too surprised afterwards.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346675)

Ban knives, nail guns and alcohol. Do it for the childrennnnnn!

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

asylumx (881307) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346891)

We already have laws about knives [wikipedia.org] and I've never heard of a nail gun or bottle of booze that was specifically designed to kill people.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346681)

No I think the common sense would be recognizing that printing the lower receiver with FDM techniques. Would produce a part that is extremely prone to catastrophic failure, not a working component.

Knowing the limitations of the technology and that FDM is probably about as good as its ever going to get. Makes all of the concerns about someone stockpiling FDM printed guns pure FUD.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346685)

So, the police shouldn't have guns? And neither should the government? Sounds good to me.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

asylumx (881307) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346857)

Why would the police print their own weapons?

Re:Sudden outbreak of lack of common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346701)

Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* print their own lethal weapon.

Sudden and massive outbreak of self serving false concern is more like it.

Sadly, I'm already worn down and becoming too tired to try to explain common sense matters to the clueless and closed minded, enlivened with misguided outrage.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346705)

Maybe because it is unavoidable?

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346717)

http://www.crossbows4u.co.uk/#/build-your-own/4535394681 replace wood with plastic

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346731)

I don't want any shitty DRM ruining my product.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

DaveAtWorkAnnoyingly (655625) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346743)

Hmmmm, until this site can make a 3D working print of a person's brain, and his body, and somehow make it all work together to produce a mass murdering idiot, then this site isn't. Anyway, last time I checked, knives were lethal weapons, and 2" of water in a bathtub can also be a lethal weapon.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (1)

Brandano (1192819) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346755)

They should just chip it out of flint, it's more traditional. That said, I am in favour of gun control laws. However nothing will prevent someone intent on breaking the law from just ignoring any law meant to hinder him.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346797)

Maybe because it's entirely legal in the US.

Re:Sudden outbreak of common sense (4, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#42347059)

Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* print their own lethal weapon.

Lets try this exact same question in another form.

Why is it a good idea to prescribe medications that increase the risk of violent behavior?

You see, it is believed that it is better to help large numbers of people even when it is at the expense of small numbers of people. If you need this in geek speak... "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

The only real debate is where the line should be. Absolute stances such as yours pretend that there is no debate, and are born of emotion rather than reason.

How Trendy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346641)

How very trendy of them.

It seems that absolutely no one is above using this tragedy for getting attention for themselves and their own gain.

It's like they say; a politician should never fail to take advantage of a disaster.

host it on tor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346667)

and pay for it with bitcoin.

The Internet perceives censorship as damage (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346673)

...and routes around it.

Just like DRM has prevented piracy (4, Insightful)

berryjw (1071694) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346729)

I don't blame anyone for worrying about liabilities, but Pandora's Box is open, there's no closing it now. The specs for many, many firearms parts are readily available, and anyone who wants to take the time to translate those designs to 3D, is going to be able to print them, and distribute the designs. I'm waiting for someone to notice they can print 3D magazines, of any capacity they want. Yes, this is another opportunity to learn that all we do for good, can and will be perverted to bad. Are we willing to throw out the whole 3D printing movement as a result?

Censorship is bad (1)

ickleberry (864871) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346749)

No matter what it is they're trying to censor. Banning citizens from having access to certain technology and equipment serves only to preserve a despot's grip on power. There is no shortage of ways to kill 20 kids in a primary school and unless you're going to pour all your energy into creating a fully childproofed totalitarian big brother state where people in general aren't allowed to do things like North Korea then restricting people won't prevent these tragedies from happening.

Good to know (1)

J'raxis (248192) | about a year and a half ago | (#42346873)

3D printers, makers, and the like have become enormously popular among libertarian types. There was quite a lot of attention devoted to these projects at last year's PorcFest [porcfest.com] gathering (1000+ attendees) for one.

Good to know which groups to dis-invite and boycott this year.

3d printed guns are a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42346879)

Sorry guys, but using 3D printers to create a "gun" is a fantasy fueled by a legal fiction.

See, at some level, for legal purposes, the ATF has to define what a "gun" is and what's just a pile of random junk. They typically do this by saying the receiver is the "gun." The receiver on an AR fairly unique in the gun world because it doesn't have any stress placed on it. So, they technically printed a "gun" in the legal sense...but only in a legal sense.

To create a working firearm, you need a lot of metal components. Springs are obvious, as are any components placed under stress by the springs. Then there's the barrel, the chamber, the firing pin and other components that cannot be printed. So, they didn't (and can't) print a gun in the real world sense unless they happen to have raw stock and and CNC machine laying around.

upper controlled...lower is NOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42347011)

the lower assembly is NOT controlled item... only the upper assembly is..because the upper assembly is the real weapon component..actually fires the bullet ...the lower assembly only houses the trigger and holds the magazine....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...