5 ms·

"The fact that we are now able to manufacture usable weapon parts is an important step..." It's not clear to me if a rifle part printed from plastic at home is

• mooism2 15y ago
  Even if a plastic part printed at home today isn't usable, a metal part printed at home in a few years time will be.
  • 0x12 15y ago
    You can't just print a metal part without some serious post processing to reach the desired strength, and even then you'll be hard pressed to come up with a part that is the same size and just as strong. Printing full metal parts is possible but there are some penalties, relatively low tensile strength is one of those.
    • gonzo 15y ago
      AR15 lowers don't really need that much strength. The upper does, but you can buy those without a FFL transfer.
• hvs 15y ago
  The law is pretty clear cut in the U.S. about gun manufacturing. If you want to build the lower receiver of an AR-15, go ahead, but if you plan on selling it you need either a Type 7 or Type 10 Federal Firearms License. The rest of the AR-15 is just parts. If a "professional" makes them for you, whether or not he knows what they are, he better have a license or he could be committing a felony.
  • koenigdavidmj 15y ago
    But in the hypothetical future where 3D printers are ubiquitous, if you sell a script to build the lower receiver, then does that count as selling one? Reminds me of the case where Phil Zimmerman noticed that exporting crypto was a form of arms export, but exporting books was protected by the First Amendment. So he published the source code to PGP and shipped it.
    • ConstantineXVI 15y ago
      Legally, the only difference between a CAD file of the AR-15 and an AR-15 repair manual should be that one is actionable by a machine. They're both a description of the operation of the object (and thus speech). And let's go even further into the hypothetical future where we've made great advances in AI. Also, for whatever reason, a court has found weapons CAD files to be illegal. What will the law say when a machine is intelligent enough to decipher the same human-targeted AR-15 repair manual and reconstruct one from that information?
    • anelson 15y ago
      IANAL but I know my way around US federal firearms law. I am not aware of any law or rulemaking which would classify, for example, CAD files describing a lower receiver as an item subject to firearms regulations. There exist books sold openly and without restriction detailing how one can make improvised firearms, some of which if constructed would be illegal for possession by American civilians. I'm sure this information has by now made it to the Internet as well. Up to this point, such materials are treated as speech and thus strongly protected by the First Amendment. I see no reason why 3D printer instruction files would be treated any differently, under current law. It's not hard to imagine a Congresscritter raising a fuss over concerns of "children printing machine guns" or some such nonsense, and thereby introducing legislation to regulate such materials, including executable scripts for 3D printing machines. It's even possible to imagine such legislation passing the House and Senate. Our current president would likely sign any such legislation he was given. However, it is very difficult to imagine the legislation surviving a Supreme Court challenge on First Amendment grounds. Then again, I said the same thing about the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, and SCOTUS upheld that 5-4, so what do I know.
  • bradly 15y ago
    It isn't really clear cut. Is there a difference in selling a firearm and selling a printer that can print firearms?
    • 0x12 15y ago
      A cornucopia machine will create a few social problems as well as some legal issues.
    • bradleyland 15y ago
      The machinery that makes firearms isn't unique or special. Some of the tooling may be, but I can't imagine all the CNC mills an lathes are purpose specific at firearms manufacturers' plants. As with most things firearms related, the offense occurs with the action. In this case, the transaction. You can manufacture a firearm with standard machinery and suffer no penalty. The same applies for a printer capable of printing a firearm (or parts). It is when you sell those firearms (or parts) that you have broken the law. If it is against the law to possess a firearm in your location, then it doesn't matter how you made it. Possession remains illegal.
      • bradly 15y ago
        I see your point, but I am more thinking if 3D printers became household item then the cost, time, and specialized knowledge prerequisites that exist currently to make your own gun are all gone.
        • hvs 15y ago
          Much like using a high-quality printer to counterfeit money, it's not the technology that makes it illegal, it's the act.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• commandar 15y ago
  >It's not clear to me if a rifle part printed from plastic at home is usable. It wouldn't surprise me if it were perfectly functional. The lower receiver on an AR houses the trigger group, buffer tube, magazine, and grip. Not really a lot of high-stress parts there. The barrel, bolt, gas tube, etc that have to withstand 60k+ PSI of pressure are all part of the upper receiver. Legally, only the lower is classified as a firearm in the United States (meaning they have to be transferred through a licensed firearms dealer if shipped); the upper and the rest of the gun are simply parts and can be shipped directly by UPS/FedEX/USPS.