This is not a good country.
3
The National Rifle Association wants Americans to be armed, to protect ourselves from an invasion by the Russians.
Oh, but just wait until one of these plastic weapons is used to murder American children. Everyone will immediately spring into action to offer their "thoughts and prayers."
3
John Adams, second president of the USA, said, "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
The only distiction has to do with the means.
1
" I am not worried. A plastic gun? Give me a break." - comment by CBH. My reply is that these guns have been printed, tested and used successfully. They are often one-shot disposable devices. But of course that's good enough to kill or maim, or to really intimidate and bully someone you disagree with.
1
Here's the problem. To so-called "rights" activists:
Guns are more important than life itself.
Safety, freedom from violence, freedom from the fear, forget it. The "right" to express anger by wounding or taking a life, that's no problem. The right to kill at a distance is "guaranteed" by the "Constitution". The right to acquire an armory to enforce "second amendment solutions" is more important than democracy itself.
Shameless!
6
Why even try to fly with them when you can print one out once you are in the country?
1
Hijackers can use them
I suspect the only thing that will cause the NRA to reverse its position on 3D printed guns is if and when they cut into the gun manufacturers' profits.
3
Just one more article that has no substance.
It is obvious it has no substance and most of the other comments will give you the reasons why.
People who are anti Trump don't care as long as they can use the information against Trump.
How can the Times tell you they give you the facts and then give you lies.
It is like when the little boy cried wolf.
People got tired of his lies so didn't help when he told the truth.,
The Times losses it's credibility when they lie.
Instead of hurting Trump they help him.
I don't care who the President is.
At one time it made sense as things were simpler.
Washington was a general and the military had troops who had simple guns and cannons to use as weapons so it was plausible that he could lead the military.
Now the President most of the time has no military experience and the military has every type of weapon from a simple hand gun to missiles that can destroy a country in seconds.
No one person especially someone with no military experience
can be qualified to lead the military.
It doesn't stop there.
The President makes decisions about the economy and might not even have the ability to run a simple business.
The President gets to decide who is appointed to the supreme court and might not know anything about the Constitution.
Trump is not qualified but neither was Obama or Bush or Clinton.
We need a new kind of government.
One without a President.
1
This will disrupt the power of the NRA, who get their funding not from gun owners but from gun manufacturer. When I can download and print my own gun, who needs Smith & Wesson?
2
What's next: grenades, bazookas, nuclear bombs … of course it's our 1st and 2nd Amendment right to make and own such devices. Criminals, terrorists and mass murderers-to-be are all covered by those Amendment rights until they commit their crimes - everyone knows that... The Constitution and the Bill of Rights have been shredded for years - The United States of Anything Goes - it's your right or soon will be...
People who wrote the second amendment couldn't envision anything other than a musket. The only good to come of these plastic guns is it will put a significant dent in the sales made by the conventional gun industry eventually, sort of like streaming services and DVDs. Look to the NRA to push for a total ban on plastic guns as a result.
2
The feds seem to have no problem classifying and restricting the use of various fireworks. (See the ATF website for details). But they seem to find it impossible to classify and restrict the use of firearms. Similar cases exists for the use of illegal drugs and prescription pharmaceuticals. And similar to guns, the recreational use of illegal drugs is pervasive, and even very acceptable to a significant subculture of the U.S. Isn't it interesting that the feds even have a dept called ATF, (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms)?
4
Everyone please focus an gun laws that make a real difference. Like a FBI database of all serial numbers of semiautomatic rifles. Or a better background check. It appears to be easy to convince the public that a 3-D printer gun or receiver is a dangerous and undetectable . The bullet and case are metal. Which can be detected. As well as the critically needed metal firing pin. Also the likely case that gun will explode because of the pressure produced in the chamber because plastic is soft. Yes, they can be printed but they are a risk to user and of questionable accuracy. You still need a round that is metal with a metal primer. The primer designed to only go off being hit by a metal firing pin. Most plastics that can be printed to not have the strength to withstand the impact and will not set off the primer. Look at the videos, the weapons all experience catastrophic failure.
3
I'll have to give some thought to whether I think plastic guns should be subject to unique regulation, compared with traditional ones. That's not what this case was about.
The issue is whether the owner of the company described here - who was a law student at the time - has a free speech right to publicly describe the process for making such weapons. And, whether listeners have a right to hear it (or read it). My answer is yes. Gag laws are rightly disfavored, and if you think the Trump Administration was too clever by half when it labeled Canadian imports "national security" concerns, you should be equally troubled by the Obama Administration slapping this down as an arms export.
Yes, people will undoubtedly put these designs to their obvious use, and that might run afoul of the statute described here, or enable evasion of other gun regulations - regulations that presuppose a "manufacturer" and "seller" somewhere in the chain. Maybe I will agree with those who think plastic guns are too dangerous. But I will never agree with those who think that knowledge, itself, is too dangerous to be permitted.
An odd memory: When I was a kid, I read of a graduate student designed a nuclear weapon, using publicly-available materials. It may have been this one: https://people.com/archive/a-princeton-tiger-designs-an-atomic-bomb-in-a... The government classified his paper, which I thought was wrong.
I still do.
2
@Adam - I agree very much.
The government tried to bad cryptographic code on the same grounds, that it is munition rather than speech. They failed. They should fail here, as well, even if we don't want people making these guns.
It's legal to publish a recipe for meth. It's not legal to make meth. Same logic applies for guns.
@Adam- The government has the right to classify things that are dangerous, like someone publishing the design of an atomic bomb. If I published stuff on the internet on how to make Sarin nerve gas, how to make zyklon B, or how to genetically create a killer virus you can bet there would be a massive effort to shut it down, for obvious reasons.
I also will (gently) point out that you are under a misconception, and it is contained in this "he issue is whether the owner of the company described here - who was a law student at the time - has a free speech right to publicly describe the process for making such weapons. " The file in question was not a text file describing how to make a plastic gun on a 3D printer, they are files that you can upload into a 3D printer that allows the printer to read them and produce the gun (they are basically machine readable CAD files, that are how you program a 3D printer). He wasn't describing the process, he was literally giving people the ability to produce the guns themselves, would be like giving someone a kit to produce Ricin or Sarin.
2
It's outrageous that the government settled with Defense Distributed.
Undetectable guns are perfect for assassins, who can tuck them in suitcases and fly anywhere. Obviously, the wisest way to do that is to keep them disassembled until they reach their destination. No one needs such a gun for legitimate uses. They must be banned.
1
@Barbara
People already acquire "undetectable guns" that are manufactured in countries like the Philippines. Where the manufacturers produce those firearms in the jungles with hand tools and scrap metal. Those firearms are then smuggled into the US.
National Geographic covered this with plenty of detail in their "Ghost Guns" documentary. The battle of gun control has been lost for decades. What Cody Wilson did was guarantee it would be irreversible.
1
@Frederick Bernal
I hope your last statement is incorrect. Nothing seems to be irreversible as SCOTUS changes.
These are not only unable to be picked up by metal scanners, they are untraceable. No serial numbers. No supply chain. No background checks or waiting periods.
Police departments are going to have to add lists of high grade 3d printers to the list of supplies they monitor for suspicious activity. We need national laws that it is a crime to be found with an unlicensed firearm OR national law that you must have firearm insurance for anyone who owns a firearm OR just start restricting and licensing high grade 3d printers. The latter would be much more stupid and inconvenient but would be easier to get through Congress. Which is pretty much sums up our current state as a nation: stupidity is more convenient.
While it may not be illegal to put the instructions online, can individual states make it a crime to make one?
"... they are untraceable."
The design, the specific type of plastic, and any ammunition would provide clues. Further, the gun would be checked for fingerprints and fibers. The only thing that serial numbers do is make the job of investigators easier -- unless the gun is stolen.
"No supply chain."
3D printers use plastic pellets or filaments, so there is indeed a "supply chain".
I suppose the NRA's opposition to this law means that they support the ownership of any firearm as being permitted by our Constitution's 2nd Amendment, regardless of whether our society has a way to protect ourselves from criminals and terrorists. What? I mean, what? That's just crazy...there is no possible argument for the legality of undetectable firearms. Period. Unless of course you support criminals and terrorists...
@Jdrider The problem is that this law bans plans for the guns, not guns themselves. By similar reasoning, "Breaking Bad" might be banned for teaching how to make meth.
1
@Alfred
That already is in existence, tv shows and movies when they show someone making something illegal never show all the steps, Breaking Bad doesn't show you all the steps needed to make Meth, and MacGuyver when he was doing things that actually could work always left things out to keep people from using it as an instruction guide. There is a line with free speech, but where public safety is involve the right to suppress such descriptions has been found to be legal.
But can you purchase or print non-metallic bullets? Without such bullets, who cares if someone brings a plastic gun onto a plane?
"Without such bullets, who cares if someone brings a plastic gun onto a plane?"
Everyone who doesn't know if the gun is loaded or not. Indeed, terrorists and hijackers sometimes use fake weapons to gain control. And then there are the police shootings in which someone had a toy gun ...
Perhaps the government should ban 3d printers. They are not protected by the constitution
3
I don't understand why gun rights advocates are so against preventing the loons from getting guns. This relates to 3D printing as well as universal background checks.
In my experience, the issue is that they think (and have been well-trained by the NRA) that this will lead to banning the 2nd Amendment so they do not compromise at all.
Then it's the usual "bad guys will get guns anyway" but how many crimes have been committed by automatic weapons since they've been banned?
The gun shown in the photo is, by its manufacturer's admission, a one-shot weapon. The heat and pressure of a single discharge deforms the weapon and makes it unusable. A single shot flintlock pistol would be more effective and it isn't subject to government regulation. And even if the gun is undetectable by X-rays, it still needs detectable metal ammunition.
You can make a metal gun with 3D printing, but it's detectable and the cost would be thousands of dollars. It's much easier and cheaper to get a gun on the black market.
Maybe someday someone will develop a plastic that is as strong as steel. Until then I think the worry over undetectable guns is overblown.
2
The plastic guns that the Congress will not outlaw should give the Secret Service nightmares. Senators/Congressmen may have theirs terms cut short without an election. Supreme Courts Justices may face the same fate.
Opposition to banning this type of weapon must be the NRA's way of helping to make America great again.
The standard sci-fi theme about humanity's downfall at the hands of technology centers on artificial intelligence and robots and such. But with what we've been reading lately about the downsides of smartphones, and now printable guns, I'm thinking the path there is more subtle and we might be farther along than we imagine.
1
Technology has a way of rendering certain laws moot. e.g., 3-D printer vs gun control, abortifacient drugs and conversely, fetus-viability interventions vs abortion…
I’ve been trying to think why America allows its citizens to own guns.
1. To protect the home despite their resulting availability to children and predators?
2. For the joy of watching birds and animals die after penetration by lead pellets?
3. To guarantee the existence of a well-armed militia?
I can only conclude that a substantial number of Americans love to own the deadliest hand-held weapons created in the history of mankind for absurd reasons, and I am increasingly concerned that our major media have yet to recognize the need to ban them.
1
"... a substantial number of Americans love to own the deadliest hand-held weapons created in the history of mankind ..."
The "deadliest hand-held weapon[] created in the history of mankind" on a shot per kill basis would be a shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. Those could be used to shoot down a civilian airliner. Google "Stinger" and "Strela" for examples.
2
But I take it the plastic gun fires real bullets - made of ?? lead??? which could be detected by an X-ray machine? Obviously, neither works by itself. Although at one point in time there was some sort of pen gun?? or is that an urban legend?
Very interesting given the state of fear we have entered into.
We now read about how Russia infiltrated the NRA to facilitate unrest from within to undermine American democracy. Then, from another angle, the challenge of "first amendment rights" to manufacture weapons created to kill people. The Second Amendment is being powerfully manipulated to undermine safety and democracy from within and outside our country. The Second Amendment is nothing but a Trojan Horse righteously manipulated by Republicans. Anything to win at the expense of our liberty should be the slogan of the Republicans.
1
The original bill was introduced in 1988 to address the Glock 17, a handgun which was composed of both metal and polymer parts, not science fiction. Unlike what this op-ed implied, the original bill did not ban these guns (obviously, since they are now standard issue for law enforcement, as are many other polymer guns).
Israel also wants to require that “the slide/cylinder and the receiver on a handgun and the slide, receiver, and barrel on a long gun (rifle or a shotgun) would have to be made of detectable and non-removable metal.” That’s nonsense. For one, that’s not how any gun is manufactured. Furthermore, guns need to be able to be disassembled to be properly cleaned and maintained so they perform SAFELY.
“The downloadable files will reportedly include AR-15-style rifles, which were used in recent mass shootings in Las Vegas; Newtown, Conn., [etc].” This is fear mongering. Basic science and evidence indicate that a fully plastic gun is probably more dangerous to the user than the target and poses minimal risk. If Israel’s concern is a fully plastic gun shaped like a baby doll, well, there’s not much you can do about that, otherwise, a gun-shaped gun is detectable (a primary concern of Israel's).
Ultimately, Israel is railing against information being available, which is not related to the Second Amendment at all. A gun blueprint is not a gun, it’s information, and I think we all understand that things get much more dicey when you try to ban information.
2
I'm a big proponent of guns (including that boogeyman of firearms, the AR-15), for sport, hunting, collecting, and self-defense.
But generally these "printed guns" aren't of value for any of those things except, perhaps, self-defense but even then a traditionally made firearm is more instantly available and likely more reliable than these guns.
One can almost presume that these downloadable guns would be used for nefarious/criminal purposes due to their cheapness and inability to be traced if proper precautions are taken.
Guns are already easily gotten and for relatively cheap. Why allow these downloadable guns? Of course, like anything on the internet, good luck trying to enforce a law that banned the computer code for these guns. There are so many places on the internet where authorities cannot reach.
Seems like a plastic single shot gun that likely doesn’t have the accuracy of a well made traditional gun wouldn’t be good for much other than to smuggle it into somewhere that guns are not allowed - like court rooms or prisons?
"... the AR-15), for ... self-defense."
Explain why you need an AR-15 for "self-defense". Give some realistic scenarios.
As the author admits "...the settlement doesn’t reverse the Undetectable Firearms Act." The settlement by the US government simply cancelled the State Departments previous edict that instructions on how to manufacture an gun using a 3D printer be taken down off the internet.
So presumably any US attorney could still sue to enforce the ACT, unless directed not to by Sessions. In addition, the AG of any state that had a similar law (if there are any)might be able to sue to enforce that law.
Hobby grade 3D printers cannot be used to make these weapons. They can't make parts large enough of accurate enough to be used for a gun. Also, only flimsy plastics can be used on hobby grade printers, also not suitable for a gun. Only commercial 3D printers can make these guns, and those printers are much more rare and much more expensive. The pictured gun in this article would cost several thousand dollars to print if it was printed at a commercial facility.
The notion that kids are going to print a gun in their garage one afternoon and then use the gun for a school shooting the next day is simply not true. Let's all calm down a little bit.
2
There will come a point with 3D printing, like all other technology, where the advances come fast and furious while the cost plummets. Let’s not wait until the average teenager actually can make a gun in his garage.
3
@Ben several thousands of dollars is out of reach for many kids but not for adults with jobs and a political axe to bury. How about a terrorist?
1
Given emerging technologies such as nanotechnology there will be a time in the future when any kind on gun may be made with devices like the existing 3-D printers. But people having devices that can make a ready to use and efficient firearm like semi-automatic or fully automatic rifles in their homes with their home computers is not possible with the devices reported. They can be used to make guns that are somewhat accurate for a very few shots at very close ranges. They are still deadly weapons but the concern should conform with reality not our imaginations. Over the long run, there needs to be policies and laws about people being able to make guns with machines that can reproduce nearly all side arms with technologies that can be reasonably anticipated.
How can law enforcement not be screaming?
During the second world war cheap disposable throw away guns (FP 45) were given to partisan groups. The idea was to walk up to a German soldier, kill him at close range, and seize his weapon.
Not opposing these weapons is tantamount to aiding and abetting the assassination of law enforcement officers.
3
"The idea was to walk up to a German soldier, kill him at close range, and seize his weapon."
You should read up on the "FP 45" before talking about it. First, it was intended for use by resistance *fighters*, who have some military training. Second, it was a single-shot pistol with very limited range. Third, American generals did not like it. Fourth, it was made out of metal.
See the Wikipedia article, "FP-45 Liberator":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator
no, that is the apparent mission of the NRA
BEHOLD!
The latest advancement in weapons designed for "hunting"!
I wonder if the GOP would still support these if it was Democrats that had the majority of them?
2
Real guns are simply too easy to obtain to worry about someone printing one up. Let's face it, if a "criminal" wants a real gun he can get one, no need to print one.
5
@M. Thomas but he'd not be able to walk thru airport security or court house security etc.
2
@Doug
Without a metal firing pin or metal jacketed ammo he couldn't do anything more than pistol whip someone, probably breaking his cute little plastic gun
Stealth guns. Just what America needs.
2
Tell me, how much money was filtered to the NRA and the Republicans from the Russians? They certainly got a lot of bang for the bucks.
3
Take note, trump followers: Russia has extremely restrictive gun laws. Trump and his new party of greatness will be coming for your guns. Obama didn't take them, did he? He was only president. A dictator can and will take them.
What’s next—the undetectable plastic nuclear bomb?
2
Do people understand here that 3d printing can be done with metals? Plastic guns and bullets are just a joke.
1
@Soo
I've seen videos of 3D printers that build houses with cement. I think it was in Japan.
@Soo A joke can't kill you but a plastic gun can
@Soo Yes, laser sintering is amazing. All you need is a gigantically-expensive carbon dioxide laser and an equally gigantic power supply, along with a lot of other really complex machinery and software. Oh, and then you need an annealing furnace, and a way to fabricate spring steel parts . . .
Oh, and now your not-plastic gun that cost you hundreds of thousands if not a million dollars to get started manufacturing is no longer any less detectable than any gun you can buy at Cabela's.
In the age of TOR, Peer to Peer file sharing, Torrents, etc... Data *cannot* be restricted. It's as impossible to remove these files from anyone with an internet connection. Time and energy would be better served in improving our ability to detect these as opposed to trying to ask the internet not to distribute information. Ask the RIAA how well trying to stranglehold MP3's worked for them...
1
Everyone who feels safer now raise your arms...
It there a toddler version of this new toy?
Are prisoners allowed to download the app?
Does it only shoot plastic bullets?
Thank heavens the GOP understands that the greatest "freedom" we have in this country, is the freedom to die from a deadly weapon made on a 3D home printer!
2
@Chicago Guy 1. What toddler or prisoner has access to and the knowledge to use a 3D printer? 2. What does the GOP have to do with this? You have always been allowed to make your own gun.
1
Easily printed plastic guns will surely put a big dent in the sale of expensive metal weapons. The merchants of death evidently forgot about that possibility.
1
Whenever a conservative points out that a gun law won't work, a liberal will be there to respond with the asinine "Why bother having laws at all then" retort.
The point of a criminal law is to deter crime and punish criminals after the fact. Gun laws do neither, as the crimes that violent criminals want to commit with them carry more of a sentence than the possession in the first place.
That's why gun laws only impact law abiding people.
2
Computer software is not “speech” any more than the gears in an injection molding machine are. The previously established court precedents remain at once technologically ignorant and legally ludicrous. Much as the gears in that molding machine direct it’s actions through the mechanically based program they form, the code to make a 3D created gun directly drives the electromechanical device that is manufacturing it. As 3D printers continue to advance, the ability to rapidly make industrial strength, mass casualty weapons will appear in garages and basements across the nation. Perhaps we’ll finally regulate them in ten or twenty years, after an entire school or two is completely obliterated.
2
EASY ACCESS TO PRINTED GUNS Makes it horrifyingly easy for kids to print out guns and smuggle them into school, since the metal detectors won't pick them up. Getting a box of ammo is easier than buying a gun underage. In fact, I imagine that it's possible to fool a website selling ammo by lying about being under 18. The GOPpers, if they fail to safeguard Homeland Security, are going to have lots of blood on their hands. The chambers of Congress and other government buildings will be vulnerable to having guns smuggled in since they cannot be detected by metal detectors. Meaning that security staff will have to begin full body pat downs of everyone entering the building. And that means everybody and every body!
2
@John Jones
What you say is not true now but most likely will be sometime in my lifetime.
I understand how you can blame the GOP but you would be wrong.
Blame the scientist who invented the 3 D printer.
We can't uninvent.
You seem to think we can control how it can be used.
We can't.
You have to accept that you can't fix everything.
Government can't fix this or can the scientist who invented it.
So don't make this about politics.
1
The download should AT LEAST require a license. This is absurd.
4
"The download should AT LEAST require a license."
Who would issue that "license"?
"This is absurd."
It would be "absurd" to "require a license" to read the Wikipedia article on "Molotov cocktails":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail
This latest action by Congess is extremely depressing, making it possible for anyone to obtain a gun without any type of clearance at all. In effect it encourages deranged people to go ahead and kill innocent people if they want to. Our representatives in my opinion have demonstrated zero interest in any moral code that prioritizes Christian values. The NRA's control over politicians has never been more evident.
1
Last Christmas I gifted myself an inexpensive 3D printer. The important thing to know is that such machines are not your office copier/printer. 3D printers currently are something like PCs in the 1980's (need to write your own code, be handy with a soldering iron, etc). The user needs a world of patience and persistence to make the simplest thing. The challenge bcomes exponential when attempting to print with materials that might actually approximate the qualities of steel (polycarbonate, nylon and nlyon carbon fiber). Given that, developing something that can withstand the chamber and barrel pressures of a lethal firearm (.223 caliber rifle or 12 gauge shotgun) without exploding seems a remote possiblity. Inexpensive 3D printers are also SLOW. It takes days to print an object of any real size.
Another thing to think about: How would the NRA gather any cash outside of Russia if Americans just printed their own guns?
4
Frank, that is a Home Built model. The technology is moving forward rapidly. The deluxe industrial models are pre assembled, the materials are improving on a daily basis and durability is getting decent. And it isn't like they need it to shoot 500 rounds, 5 will keep a plane full of people in their seats. And CAD/CAM systems will write the programs in minutes.
First that "age" began a long time ago, probably more than the five years that this opinion indicates. Now whatever law you might make terrorists and criminals are not going to pay any attention to it. I do wonder if ammo can be 3D printed without metal. A gun without ammo is just a club.
3
Please send the software to every elected official in the nation. A short explanation on how to use it and where to buy the printer and plastic ammunition in their district.
Ask which member of their family they are willing to sacrifice if they are on stage with them facing a hostile crowd.
Explain what lifetime care for a paraplegic child is like.
In money and time.
Are they really willing to swap that for a few pieces of silver?
13
Does anybody remember the wax chewy things back in the 50's filled with fruity syrup. I recall them in the shape of six-shooters among other sorts.
2
Bullets are still metal though, right?
@Jeff Cartridge casings are brass and bullets are lead, ie they are not ferous (iron, steel), not magnetic and may not be detectable
Could someone not make lethal bullets from polycarbonate? Would these not be legal to sell? Could come in colors to go with your polycarbonate gun!
"Bullets are still metal though, right?"
If they are, they would be detectable by x-rays and metal detectors.
If they are not, they would be much less lethal -- plastic bullets are used for riot control.
On the right to print arms, undetectable ones. @realDonaldTrump says “go ahead, make my day” to the designer.
2
The United States is sick. Look at the Oval Office. Look at the blood on the street. This is the nation we live in. Shameless.
13
Fortunately, this will all become moot when every American has shot each other.
9
And what happened to the ban on bumpstocks?
5
Steve, you epitomize the problem with the left's effort to disarm American citizens. You gloss over realities to make a case for a specious outcome therefore your credibility vanishes. What you are doing is no different from those that argue for "sensible restrictions" and then regulate flash suppressors and vertical hand grips. No one who is knowledgeable will take such a person seriously.
To begin with, the genie is out of the bottle, the toothpaste is out of the tube. Once the plans appeared once on the internet they became ubiquitous and immortal. In fact, your op-ed has probably done more to get people to fool around with "plastic" guns than anything else has. Happy?
Let me ask you (and everyone else reading this) a question: ever been thru a metal detector? How much metal could you get past? A set of keys? No. A quarter? Nope. Virtually anything metal? Not a chance.
Now for the honesty part. How much metal is in a "plastic" gun? 3 oz? 4? There is a barrel liner and, naturally, ammunition. Try getting that past a metal detector. Not gonna happen. You know that, right?
It is not in anyone's interest to knee-jerk a "no" on everything gun related regardless of it's import. It simply weakens you on issues that might have merit.
13
@Michael James Cobb OK -- so that means that, as long as the owner of a 3D gun doesn't try to get on an airplane with it, the gun can be used to kill or maim as many people as the owner wants. Or a child, seeing a gun that looks like his toy gun, can shoot and maim or kill any family member "accidentally". (The accident isn't that the child picked up the "toy", the "accident" is that it was available to be picked up and played with.) Oh, but that's not an "accident" -- that's negligent parenting, and overwhelming gun ownership.
1
@Michael James Cobb; NRA talking points; more guns mean more dead people. Period. We need real gun control; this is the opposite. Ray Sipe
3
This is NONSENSE “Printing with 3-D technology allows someone to produce a fully functioning plastic firearm almost anywhere.”
You need hardened mental to make a fully functioning firearm.
1
Even if the next baseball game attack is with such a weapon, or weapons the GOP is so beholden to NRA money that all they will do is prostrate themselves in front of their masters and clean the bottoms of their boots if so ordered.
2
Technology can't be uninvented no matter which way it cuts or who finds it offensive.
For the hysterical, now if the government takes your gun you can print another. Hysterical,fearmongering FIXED.
Do all of the people whining here realize that bullets are still metal, and will not evade detection in metal detectors?
3
Suddenly, the GOP, NRA, Trump policies make a lot of sense. If you want to destroy America from within and kill as many Americans as possible, then these are the types of policies that you would implement. Putin would want these types of policies implemented. And as we now know who owns Trump, the NRA, and much of the GOP, we have our answer. America, when are you going to wake up and come to your senses?
10
@Herman Brass Unfortunately, just before, or just after, it is too late.
1
Some child with computer savvy is going to 3D print this weapon and upon showing off, will either kill himself or a friend.
And the imbecilic anarchist who distributed the plans, who is mentally ill, will suffer no consequences.
6
@David J Sure they will. Where are the bullets coming from? And back in the day you made guns out of plumbing parts, a smart person can still do that. https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/22-zip-gun-made-using-pipe...
Where is the Congressional and Public Outcry ?? After all the protesting etc...is anyone out there listening to us ?? What will it take to change things ?
1
How are terrorists going to use this weapon. Sneak it onto an airplane? The cabin doors are locked and there are Federal Marshals, sitting just waiting, with weapons that are truly much more lethal than this piece of plastic. I am not worried. A plastic gun? Give me a break. Law enforcement always wins with superior organization as well as weaponry.
2
Just what we need, a shootout on an airplane. You do know that that can bring the plane down, right? And how many terrorists versus how many marshals?
By the way, it's not the "piece of plastic" that's lethal. It's the piece of metal that comes flying out.
1
Do you recall how the events of 9/11 transpired? All of the terrorists were suicidal. Do you think the threat of being killed is going to stop a suicidal person intent on killing as many people as possible?
One last point--the sky marshals don't have lethal weapons. Planes are crowded places so it is much more likely than not that a bullet could kill the wrong person, and if a bullet were to actually puncture the skin of the airplane while it was anywhere near cruising altitude and speed, the plane would most likely decompress catastrophically.
1
When the terrorist enters through the middle school metal detector where your children, or your neighbors' or friends' children are in attendance will you be worried then? How about a church which generally does not have "superior organization and weaponry"?
Please give your position on this a little more thought.
Just another example of how our society has gone over the edge into a collective madness.
3
When the time comes again for "thoughts and prayers" for victims of a 3D gun shooting spree, we'll all gnash our teeth and look back asking "what else could we have done?"
2
I can pretty much assure you that there will be no 3D gun shooting sprees. There are much more lethal weapons for that and can be purchased perfectly legally. Worrying about plastic 3D guns is about as absurd as it gets. If you want to worry about something worry about the universal availability of AR15s and other semi- automatic rifles with 30 round magazines, as many as you want and as much ammo to fill them as you please.
1
Chalk another one up for The Constitution. By the way, terrorists don't need 3d Printers. They have all the real machine guns, C4 and rocket launchers, etc. they want courtesy of the Obama administration giving billions of dollars to Iran to buy them.
5
@Jim THIS IS NOT ABOUT TERRORISTS! This is about little kids thinking these guns are toys. This is about parents who are careless about their guns. This is about a small number of mentally unstable people killing other people in their places of entertainment, in their schools, and in their homes. IN AMERICA, GUNS ARE NOT ABOUT TERRORISTS. GUNS ARE ABOUT US -- NATIVE BORN AMERICANS, some with long lineages in this country -- who can get whole arsenals of guns and kill kids in schools.
1
And about suicides. More than 40,000 per year in the U.S.
1
We must have plastic guns because:
(1) New litmus test for Republican primaries, "if plastic guns are banned, slippery slope to confiscating all guns, because liberals want you defenseless against Trump's 'Mexican rapists and border crossing terrorists' ".
(2) Makes money for 3D printer, resin manufacturers.
(3) New distraction in political campaigns, allows the GOP to pass more tax cuts, loot the Treasury for their billionaire donors, while the peasants bury their dead.
9
This issue has been bubbling up since Dick Cheney opposed it in the House. Please, get money out of campaigns.
1
@porcupine pal Not likely with this Court -- which will be judging these matters for the next 30 years!
A look at the pictured gun gives me questions: What am i supposed to shoot from it, plastic rounds? How many, one? How far, 5 yards? It does not look handy either. Thus: It does not look like a super-weapon with which terrorists might kill dozens. Actually, it looks just like a thing to be produced by a broody youth in order to kill his hated father. Or the hateful assassin in a courthouse to kill only the judge and then feel "better".
3
If you care so much, pass a law. However, I will point out that the history of the United States is tightly coupled to arms manufacturing, and making restrictions on the redistribution of 3D models cannot be made illegal (they are plans, not embodiments).
Also, all the dramatic emotional language about people smuggling guns through X-ray checkpoints: that's not really a threat. You could already produce a plastic gun and do this, but nobody does. It's not a practical terrorist mechanism.
1
America becomes more and more surreal. Every morning I wake up reading the NYT as if it was a Mad Max script. So many worthwhile problems to work on in this society, and we have very bright individuals spending their days inventing ways to print out plastic guns.
1
@ACJ Or talking about banning them. How about the congress vote on all nominees, and work six days a week 10 hours a day until they do. Note I said "vote" not just approve. We have massive issues that might be addressed with the waste of effort on a plastic gun.
1
This is just more of the Trump/Republican/NRA goal of permitting just about anyone to have and carry any type of gun anywhere at anytime.
Remember that the NRA was against disallowing people on the no fly/ terrorist watch lists to purchase/possess a firearm.
Being against disallowing the 3D Printing of guns is in line with this.
Once again, the gun "rights" of the few outweighs the safety rights of the many. That is the mantra of the NRA.
Here's the thing - the common factor in a lot of the serious problems in our nation is this administration and the GoP. Do the math. You can change the situation by demanding more from your Democrats and voting for more of them. Because whatever you dislike about the Democrats, they will not increase your taxes while reducing taxes for billionaires and they will fight for safety of our children in schools by regulating weapons that do not belong in civilian hands.
3
@aucontraire Sure Nancy will raise many people's taxes, and those wealthy people in high tax states are wealthy and their federal taxes were increased. Folks with houses worth a million are wealthy. My house is worth 100K and the taxes on it are about 1200 per year. I could not afford a house in say NYC.
Just south of me is Santa Barbara, where houses are at a median of about $1.4mil. Having one that your parents paid $35,000 for (or less) does not make you wealthy. Middle class. Unless you have no ambition at all, that is attainable.
As a protest, a large number of people could walk into the congressional gallery with these weapons, unloaded, rise at once hands held high and announce with the guns dropped to the floor the isles are littered with guns.
Only people over 65 who are white, with life threatening illnesses would be allowed to do this to minimize the possibility of guards mowing down the whole lot.
And if the guards do open fire, whats another mass slaughter by firearms in America?
1
Does the Second Amendment give Americans the right to create designs for and distribute, without oversight, these homespun killing tools? If only we could liberally apply civil liberties with such an impressionist eye. Maybe we'd be able to attend a movie, dance in a nightclub, send our children to school or practice our faith with a greater degree of safety.
1
It's actually the First Amendent that allows it.
1
@Todd It allows us to "keep and bear arms". The ATF currently only regulates manufactured guns for sale. Citizens can build and share plans for legal designs. If you really believe that Trump is a Hitler in waiting, why would you want to take away the ability of a resistance to build their own weapons? The left is totally incoherent on guns.
There already is a gun disguised as a cellphone available and sooner or later one of these, or the now legally downloadable plastic guns will get past security protecting trump. Extremely unwise capitulation. People might shake their heads and wonder, what was he thinking? But we already know the answer: he wasn't. Of course, it wouldn't be necessary to smuggle anything in if the White House has a 3D printer on the premises.
I remember a series of children's books my kids enjoyed very much about 40 years back. The first was called 'Meet the Stupids'. I liked them too. Will a new edition be set in the WH?
2
@VJBortolot This article is typically obfuscatory. Making 'undetectable' guns isn't possible as long as ammunition is still made from brass and lead/copper (which it will be for the foreseeable future). Once again, if you think that writing a law will stop criminals from doing whatever they want to do, you are deluded. Besides all that, the 3D printed guns designed by Defense Unlimited are not effective replacements for the real thing, and if you are trying to use a weapon that you know will function, it will have to be steel or some other similar strength alloy.
1
Maybe all members of Congress should realize that these undetectable weapons may be smuggled into the legislative chambers of Congress. Perhaps that would give them a different perspective on the situation. I’d love to hear their response to that scenario.
Relative to yesterday's NYT's reporting on the $40m the NRA gave in 2016 to an unknown group associated with a GOP lobbying group used by candidates for national office ( and winning), is it any wonder these feckless congresspeople and senators are dragging their feet? The aggregate amounts the NRA gives to each campaign through these shadow groups is staggering...happening right now in FL. Voters beware.
1
As it stands, republicans in congress ought to be held co-responsible for the 'killings' that could have easily being prevented by reasonable control. What we have now, as the most violent country in the world insofar gun availability and use is concerned, is a shameful disregard for the lives of innocent people, maimed at will for no reason. This is not normal in spite of the N.R.A.'s aim to sell arms by buying politicians, politicians that oblige to keep their miserable seats. And now, technological prowess comes with plastics via 3-D printers,for which we humans are woefully ill-prepared to deal with.
The Second Amendment must be the most abused part of the Constitution. People seem to think it guarantees their right to own any kind of weapon. The thing was written eons ago, with no idea what science would bring to the table. To insist it be literally applied in spite of that is foolish. That type of refusal to apply pragmatism and consider the safety issue is one factor in the US slowly destroying itself.
3
@Jay Kayvin First, this is not really a Second Amendment issue, it is a First Amendment one. The question is not if one can own a plastic gun but if the government has the right to prohibit someone from publishing a set of instructions.
Second, if modern technology has invalidated the Second, as you seem to be claiming, then how can the Fifth be applied to today's world either, as the Court recently did by making attaching a GPS to a suspect's car without a warrant illegal? How, too, can the First be applicable to the Internet, television, or radio when it was designed to regulate quill pens and hand operated presses?
3
@Jay Kayvin You really think that Ben Franklin could not imagine improvements in weapons. And of course there are many weapons that are illegal. Fully automatic guns, and too short shotguns to just mention two. Apparently some Canadians don't know this, now you do.
@Jay Kayvin The Second Amendment was clearly written to allow states to have their own militias to counteract unpopular rulings by the Federal Government. "The people shall have the right to bear arms" refers to State militias, and not individuals, acting on their own. It comes after the Constitutional right for the Federal Union to call the people to arms (form an army). It was included in the Bill of Rights to make sure that States could protect themselves from Federal incursions, if necessary. It is only recently (history-wise) that it was interpreted to mean that every single American has the right to own weapons to be used for their own purposes. (At the time, people were using guns to hunt for food -- not to glorify their homes with the heads of their quarry.)
The first places I want to see these guns are in the Capitol building and the Supreme Court. Both Congress and the justices have done nothing to stop the gun insanity in this country. They want guns legal everywhere except at their own workplaces. If these guns become legal anyone will be able to enter these places and perhaps the do nothing Congress will for once experience the fear that other Americans might fear when they go to work,never knowing if a disgruntled former employee or angry ex husband of a worker come there with a AR15 and shoot the place up. Maybe that will finally force these cowards to do something to stop the madness, the thought that they personally could get hurt.
3
Plastic guns are not a threat. If someone wants to build a gun they can make a "slam shotgun" with scrap pipe and a few minutes of time. The instructions are widely available on the web. Even if this wasn't true guns are so ubiquitous and common in the US that even toddlers seem to have no problem getting a hold of them.
I don't have a problem with regulating guns but don't scream the sky is falling (concerning plastic guns) when there are many other much more significant problems with the Trump administration, Republicans and US firearm laws.
You only make yourself look hysterical.
6
@Mike --- not easy to get shotgun shells through security. And ceramic pellets with density higher than 3 would likely be detected. Not too destructive,thank goodness. But there are are many clever people thinking about this, to our detriment.
2
If plastic guns are "not a threat," then why do people want to have them? So they can carry around bulky, useless pieces of plastic? "Leave me alone, or I'll wave this lump of resin at you!"
1
Another sad story about our crumbling government. Who cares about us?
how would you get the ammunition past a detector or does it use plastic bullets ? and how about plastic knives.
1
The Trump administration's craven obsequiousness to the NRA and the paranoid gun-fetishness of the extreme right wing is depressing and upsetting enough, reminding me of my youth when the NRA was about gun safety and hunting and outdoor recreation, while the youth of today face a tidal wave of cheap guns everywhere, including this, a thing that looks like a toy but is anything but. And then I can't read through the article without banner ads popping up advertising 3-D printers. No, I do not want to buy a 3-D printer just because I'm reading about 3-D guns being unleashed on a society where cheap guns are already easier to get than breakfast for an underprivileged school kid.
1
This is complete and utter nonsense and the author is being disingenuous to boot.
1) Banning the distribution of information will degrade the principles our country is founded on, but it won't prevent anyone from manufacturing anything. Are we done regulating speech yet?
2) There is no 3D printer and no plastic medium in existence that can be used to produce a fully plastic firearm other than perhaps a "one shot wonder" that has about an equal chance of firing a round out of the barrel or blowing up in the shooter's face. Any sort of repeating firearm is right out.
3) The author, in typical alarmist fashion, implies that fully-plastic AR-15s will soon be a click away for anyone with a 3D printer from Office Max. The AR-15 is a high-velocity semi-automatic rifle requiring a chamber and barrel that can tolerate extremely high pressure, temperature, and friction. There is no plastic in existence, industrial or otherwise, that can take the place of steel in this application and I doubt there ever will be. Even if such a plastic were to exist, its properties would be such that it couldn't be used in formed-filament fabrication (the most common 3D printing method).
Maybe if the author did a little research he would know these things. But I suspect he DOES know; he just prefers his readers to be ignorant.
7
@Rich Duggan Thank you Rich. My guess is that the author probably doesn't know much beyond the aim of his propaganda: create fear and chisel away at gun rights and freedom of expression.
1
It is more than plastic. A much bigger threat are “ghost guns,” often AR-15 platform rifles made with milling machines from online plans and 100% legal. They carry no serial numbers.
I am a gun owner and hunter. I support the second amendment, but this culture of ours has gotten insane. If I cannot stop a criminal with my handgun, my time is up.
@Peak Oiler I'm a Richmonder and former leftist that has been robbed at gunpoint twice in the city; the first time I escaped when a car passed, and the 2nd time I escaped execution by pure luck. Thanks to the welfare state created by the left, we have multiple generations of fatherless men that know nothing but crime and handouts as a means to survive. Further restricting gun ownership of law abiding citizens will not keep criminals from getting their hands on them as long as there are market forces that make the thug life attractive to those with no other options/opportunity or role models.
3
Mark, I am still a Leftist, and I'm a gun owner. I hold a concealed-carry license and have tactical training with a gun and what is stupidly called a "Modern Sporting Rifle." I enjoy shooting them, but I don't carry an AR around.
I'm sorry for the crime you faced, but your resultant hatred of the "welfare state" is not germane to this debate, nor, really, are our very different politics.
I argue for certification, not restriction. A gun alone does little to protect you and may well be turned against you. It's training to use it property, just as with motor vehicles. I just feel that anyone who owns a gun, especially one that is carried on the person, must show that she or he can use it well in a tactical setting, against moving and multiple targets. And yes, the State is the best body to certify that, as it does for cars.
You don't get that sort of training in a CCW class. I've seen idiots with guns rattling loose in purses or backpacks, locked and loaded. We need to do better.
1
Newsflash: firearms can be made with a simple milling tool or even crudely with 2 pipes and a nail. Banning the manufacture of parts of a firearm is as effective as holding water with a colander.
2
Thomas Massie of Kentucky was the sole vote against the ban on undetectable guns. Also voted against a ban on bump stocks.
Libertarian in the Rand Paul mode. MIT educated with a narrow field of technical expertise. Rancher.
He will always protect your child's right to die in a mass shooting. Or to die without access to affordable health care.
Rohrabacher drives in the same lane. If they had their way kids might be packing weapons in pre-school and we'd never regulate another polluter. Who owns these guys? Same people who own McConnell and Trump?
37
I agree. Need to change the National Rifle Assoc. to National Russian Assoc. just follow the money.
1
Why do certain types of people think that banning something will produce a different effect in human nature. Just wait until all drugs will be able to be manufactured by these printers...
1
@Markgood grief, CFC's were banned, and the ozone hole closed up. Acid rain was tackled and solved. You are banned from driving your car at night without your headlights on. You are banned from pooping in the street. The rule of law is a concensus humanity has arrived at over time as to how we want to live together. There is no other vehicle for changing people's behavior, in a humane way. Laws work. They work better over time - we no longer cut peoples hand off or blind them if they are caught stealing, for example. We have the right to silence and must be read our Miranda rights, generally..Howdid this ridiculous idea that laws don't work gain traction..- it's like saying getting pregnant does not lead to having babies. There is no other way!!!
6
@Mark Because we know human nature is impulsive there is no doubt that having easy access to military weapons supports moments of doubt and anger.
@Mark --
Do you really believe that complex organic chemicals can be fabricated on any 3D printer that will exist in the next 50 years (or maybe ever)? Really? It's even impossible to print a Samurai sword using any printer available at any price (though maybe someday). No, this is about limiting access to mayhem, using technology already available … or soon to be. You may not be able to print a viable gun on a cheap 3D printer, but you can on one that can be purchased easily for about $100,000 -- a pittance if mayhem is the intent.
In the 1980s, I was working on a USMC project. The project manager was a retired Marine colonel with an illustrious career. Some people came to him and wanted him to help them develop and promote a plastic gun that had high lethality and no mental parts. There was plenty of water cooler talk about the problems of getting such a weapon in front of people who could bankroll the effort. There was absolutely no discussion about the morality of such a weapon and the damage to national, state, and local security that could have been done had this product come to fruition. I found this to be deeply disturbing. Just because something can be developed does not mean that it should be developed. To what positive purpose can such a weapon possibly be used? The Trump Administration is morally destitute.
45
"... and no mental parts."
In the future, smart guns will have "mental parts". They won't fire if the shooter would be committing a crime.
See the "Robocop" movies for how something like that would work -- Robocop is prohibited from shooting certain people.
"There was absolutely no discussion about the morality of such a weapon ..."
Wasn't there any "discussion" of the MILITARY applications?
@Randall Reed to send a message that fire arm regulation in the 21st century is impossible and we'd like it to stop.
@Randall Reed Trump can't ban these weapons, but state and national legislatures can.
Maybe the so-called "national conversation on guns" should make room for a discussion on ways to fill the spiritual void of those who are inclined to use guns (or any weapon for that matter), to harm others.
I'd even be interested to hear from David Hogg on that subject.
4
"... those who are inclined to use guns (or any weapon for that matter), to harm others."
If you are serious about a "conversation", you should start by acknowledging that guns can be used for self-defense, hunting, and target shooting.
1
I think what he was saying is that hunters, et al don’t have this spiritual void. The question is what do do about using guns to hurt people, not what to do about people who own and use guns leagally.
1
@QPN -- more smoke by the gun industries most ardent supporters. No one has to discuss target shooting or even self protection just to broach the subject of gun violence. We know it's a problem, and one that needs to be addressed. Ask a Canadian.
Many of these comments and discussions ignore a technological reality: software plastic resin 3d printer = gun. No legislation can prevent that. No law requiring material or serial numbers or whatever to detect the gun will prevent someone, anyone with little funds from printing a gun. No law banning their production can prevent their manufacture. The software can not be recalled.
Single use or not, the outcome is the same - a weapon that injures or worse.
No, this is not the same as publishing how to build a nuclear bomb because the means and materials for a plastic gun are readily available to anyone.
I don’t have the answer but legislation has minimal practical effect.
14
Except that laws would make it legal to punish those caught. A partial deterrent?
14
@ArtM
This is the same nonsense we always hear about why we can't regulate guns. People break the speed limit all the time, too, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have speed limits on our roads and highways.
By your logic, since laws against homicide don't prevent homicide, homicide should be legal.
If people never broke laws, we wouldn't need laws.
27
Sure the person can be prosecuted after the fact. The legislation does not prevent the gun from being easily produced, which is my point. Im more concerned about the ease of production, in someone’s home with easily obtained materials that are available to all.
3
So, it's legal to send the means to make untraceable guns via the internet but a website that allows prostitutes to advertise their wares, complete with a money trail, is illegal.
What a country.
48
I have long stopped trying to understand the peculiar obsession with firearms in your country, nor comprehend not utilise them on people in petty disputes or in soothing bruised egos.
9
@Mat
Our country was created by the gun; we just celebrated that on July 4.
1
I thought common sense would bloom once the laws we pass endanger people Congress actually cares about. Like Congressmen. But no, even having a nutter shoot Congressmen on a baseball field, or shot Gabby Gifford at a shopping center wasn't enough to get us there.
With a plastic gun, it will be easier to get through airport lines, school metal detectors, courthouse security.
I guess the bottom line is, who has to die to make Congress think twice, to make the nation step away from the gun lobby? We know it isn't children and babies, we know it isn't the President, because Reagan's shooting remains only a blip on the gun lobby radar. We know it isn't lawmakers.
Who do we value enough to change?
14
@Cathy. Our Congress presently values the corporate person and they can’t be killed with a gun.
The NRA didn’t want any modern updates to this law. Why am I not surprised. Terrorists with plastic guns. This is what Republicans, stand for now? This is what money in politics stands for? Have we lost our minds??!
15
@Jo Williams. Short answer: yes, we have.
@Jo Williams
" Have we lost our minds??!"
Most of the world thinks that.
"Let's ban information because it's dangerous."
7
Since -- in the fictional but now dominant-in-Republican-quarters view of the Second Amendment -- the (imaginary) personal right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified, unlikely any other right in the Constitution, everyone has a right, or at least the power thanks to 3-D printing, to "bear arms" in an airplane.
Don't like it? Drive to wherever you are going. Or hope that a bunch of equally imaginary "good guys" will also be carrying guns into airplanes to shoot down the bad guys. But don't expect the insane G.O.P. to protect your right to fly safely. After someone kills a bunch of people in an airplane, you can count on gun-loving "conservatives" to offer their thoughts and prayers.
14
Another gift from the Trump administration to join foul water, polluted air, mines in national parks, nice white nationalists, corporations sharing their huge tax cuts with their shareholders, children ripped from their parents, NATO foes, Canadian and Mexican security threats, etc. etc. Oh will these gifts never cease raining upon us?
30
It's a toy replica, who cares.....
1
"... the people who used quills to write the Second Amendment couldn’t comprehend that one day guns would be produced by 3-D printers."
That's just plain arrogant. Israel should read the US Constitution:
1. The Preamble refers to "our Posterity", which means that the framers were looking to the future.
2. The framers give Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" through what we call patents, which means they valued inventions.
3. The framers describe a process for amending the US Constitution, which means they understood that they couldn't think of everything.
6
I don't see how the fact that the framers recognized patents and looked to the future suggests they could foresee 3-D printers. To doubt they could is reasonable. It's hardly "arrogant".
Too many 2nd amendment absolutists misunderstand its text and context. Its text specifically references its justification: a well regulated militia. Its context is why: to secure the peace in a time when, in some states particularly, the vast majority was held in bondage. In the 18th century, 90% of the people in South Carolina were slaves.
We already regulate guns, just not very well. Machine guns and sawed off shotguns are examples.
Technology begets new laws all the time, as society responds to the effects. After Prohibition made the danger of machine guns obvious — with the Valentines Day massacre, for example — congress restricted their ownership and created the FBI.
Would that we today could respond to our changing circumstances with the same courage and vitality.
@QPN:
How about those "...ensure domestic tranquility" and "..promote the general welfare" parts of the preamble? What about those? Precisely how in this age does a gun in the hands of the ignorant yield that? Let me count the ways:
Columbine
Sandyhook
Las Vegas
Pulse Nightclub
Inland Regional Center
Umpqua Community College
...
"God, Guns, Family" = Insanity
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And those people, specifically, are the NRA, the GOP, and Donald Trump.
27
you can also make a shotgun with piece of pipe and a nail...
3
@Alfredo Martinez
But you can’t get it through airport security.
"you can also make a shotgun with piece of pipe and a nail..."
Have you ever actually tested your "design"?
Yeah, that happens a lot. No chance it will blow up in your face, right?
Metal guns are easily detected by scanners. Plastic ones are not. Please try to keep up.
Per Steve Israel : ""the people who used quills to write the Second Amendment couldn’t comprehend that one day guns would be produced by 3-D printers"
Hmmm... well Steve, at the time the Constitution was drafted... town gunsmiths existed to manufacture individual firearms per customer spec. Serial numbers did not exist. Nor did the BATF exist. So I really doubt the writers of the Constitution would have much concern over the democratization of gun manufacture. In fact, I think they probably would have celebrated it.
10
@Joey
Actually, I don't think any of the slave-holding members of the Constitutional convention, including the leaders Madison and Washington, would like the idea of vast numbers of cheap & undetectable firearms made available to their human property.
Give our forefathers some credit for common sense.
12
@Joey
Thank you! An excellent argument for the repeal of the 2nd amendment. Well said.
1
@Joey . Would the town gunsmith have been likely to manufacture firearms for terrorist organizations? Or any stranger that arrived at the door?
The analogy is inappropriate.
people who used quills couldn't imagine the internet. Does that mean it shou of have a government censor?
7
Trump,is loved by two groups - the NRA and the Russians. Why ordinary Americans tolerate this child-president is beyond comprehension.
32
@Jack Noon Maybe if you spoke to some ordinary Americans even you might comprehend why.
1
Mr. McNamara, there is nothing 'ordinary' about the Americans who belong to the Cult of Trump. These are extraordinary people and this is an extraordinary time, in which a nation with enormous resources and potential is disintegrating into stupidity and madness before our eyes.
And most of these supposedly 'ordinary Americans' are a distinct minority - resentful white folks living in moribund, sparsely populated rural portions of the American landscape, or in what were once small to mid-sized manufacturing and mining towns that are now obsolete.The majority, who live in economically robust, densely populated, racially and culturally diverse coastal states, wouldn't touch Trump and the GOP with a ten foot pole.
@Jack Noon I hate the NRA and don't like Russia as they are our Geo Political rival. I love Trump but hate his view on bump stocks. They arent machine guns nor should they be banned.
Numerous people who wrote comments complained about the NRA and the Second Amendment! I really hate to tell them the ruling has to do with the News Media's precious 'First Amendment' and Cody Wilson's Freedom of Speech that'sprotected under the First Amendment! It has absolutely nothing to do with his Second Amendment Rights. Read the article!
7
If it was possible to embed malware in Iranian centrifuges
so that they would self destruct too often to make
them useful for whatever Iran was intent upon doing with
so many centrifuges, then it ought to be possible to embed
malware into these 3d assembly downloadable codes so that they too make mincemeat of the printer or printed out device.
I am hoping that some
enlightened socially conscious group of hackers adopts a similar
attitude to this latest demonstration of the suicidal American
obsession with lethal firepower, and manages to embed a software
neutralization of this ridiculous manifestation of
the peculiarly American fetishistic death wish with firearms.
If only... if only. But maybe it would be more
effective to hire out some Israeli hackers to do
the same if no Americans are up to the task. After all,
NSA is proscribed by law to interfere with domestic
affairs.
Failing that, it will take several criminal outrages
with this weaponry for the masses before anything
is done to counteract this culture's obsession with gun fetishes.
It won't obviously occur while congress is under the thumb
of the maniacs currently dictating gun policy. It would
be nice if such pessimism proved inaccurate, but
we need to realize how much a profound
death wish has invaded the culture.
It's unfortunate that this has not manifested at the doorsteps
of the nra or other 2nd amendment zealots so that
they too can reap the joys of the murderous
ideology they foist upon us.
5
@bl
If only criminals could put dangerous and destructive code into consumer products, hurting harness law abiding people, while reserving the actual plans for the black market and criminals you mean?
the biggest thing that people do not get when they think about guns is that you are aiming the laws at the law abiding, and that prohibition never does anything but enrich and empower criminals over citizens
@bl
I really like the malware concept - much like back in the day of corrupted Napster music files - but instead of blowing up the 3d printer, the malware should be designed to blow off the hand of the user.
@bl Good luck with that. The "code" for 3D printing a simple gun can be "drawn" in 3D printing software by any minimally computer savvy individual.
With the latest revelation it is clear that the NRA is entangled with Russian agents and kremlin dollars-Their stranglehold on US politics needs to end now, and if the government can’t take steps to protect us from unregulated firearms what good is it?
17
This is just another step in Trump's mission to destroy America.
On the international level, he attacks and alienats allies and befriends totalitarian thugs.
He hasn't just refused to defend the environment by pulling out of the Paris Accord, he is attacking the environment by promoting coal burning, an increase in auto emissions and dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency.
His self-serving tax bill is sending the national debt through the roof while padding the pockets of his golf club members.
His undermining and sabotage of the ACA is taking healthcare away from those with preexisting conditions and raising the costs for all.
So, allowing the dissemination of how-to plans to produce undetectable firearms fits right in with Trump's mission to destroy America.
If Russia wanted to destroy America, it could do no better than to help install Trump in the Oval Office. If Trump wanted to obey Putin, he could do no better than what he has been doing.
Congratulations Trump supporters. You didn't like an intelligent, dignified black president, you didn't like your stagnant wages, you wanted a strongman thug to yell vulgarity and lies for your children to model.
Not only may you lose your stagnant-wage job in a trade war, not only may you lose your standard of living to increased costs of a trade war, not only may you lose your health insurance, you may lose your or your child's life to an undetectable weapon. That's making America great again...in Russian.
19
Problematic as this all is--and it's enormously problematic--I doubt that, as a practical matter, we can put this particular genie back in the bottle. The printers are already ubiquitous and will only become more so, and more capable too, and it's basically impossible to remove anything from the internet.
It's like when music studios tried to contain the spread of MP3 files; their solutions were heavy-handed and ultimately didn't work. With music files, the solution turned out to be prosecuting the worst offenders while making it so convenient to buy the files that most people abandoned the sharing sites. Perhaps there will be some clever solution here too. Controlling the ammunition, perhaps?
3
Monstrous! There is no other word for it. An undetectable, unauthorized, untraceable, and widely accessible lethal weapon is a massive threat to public safety. No civilized society would allow such a breach of security. Our gun violence already approaches a low-intensity war (and more people die of gun violence than all our real wars). The availability of downloadable guns puts the entire world in danger of disintegrating into further violence where no one is safe, anywhere. Outrageous beyond belief.
2
While it is possible to produce almost any component with a 3-D printer, it is truly unlikely such a weapon would have the firepower needed for a mass shooting. In use, these guns have a nasty habit of exploding. That is small comfort to the recipient of the first bullet fired but reassuring to the rest of us.
@Douglas McNeill
We can only hope that the explosion will happen when the guy - and it will be a guy - who printed it takes it to target practice. You didn't really need that hand, did you?
This is horrendous. No longer are ordinary screening systems of any use, but the people who will suffer most from this decision are not airline passengers or courtroom visitors.
Citizens who are female and/or young will be targeted more often than those who are adult males.
Way to throw us under the bus again!
6
@Pdianek
"Citizens who are female and/or young will be targeted more often than those who are adult males."
Wait, what?
3
Let’s just arm every man woman and child to the teeth and be done with it already. Clearly that’s where it’s going. What a horrid society we’ve created. I’m so appalled by the pro- weapons under any and all circumstances and no regulations whatsoever commentary here, that I can’t even wrap my head around it. Let alone come up with any lucidity or eloquence to express my view point or disgust.
3
It's quite psycho-pathological that we are actually inclined to wonder whether the founders in their wisdom had in mind, in their consideration of "well-regulated militia" in the 2nd amendment, an unfettered license to manufacture firearms that might be used to circumvent safeguards meant to prevent the murder people in courthouses or the crashing of enormous aircraft into buildings, stadiums, etc.
3
"... the crashing of enormous aircraft into buildings ..."
If you are referring to the 9/11 hijackings, the hijackers did not use guns.
1
"The National Rifle Association approved of the reauthorization of the 1988 law." Funny, I don't recall a branch of government called the National Rifle Association. How is it that a non-governmental organization, allegedly comprised of 5 million members, or less than .014 percent of the population, determines gun policy for the nation?
4
An average of 93 Americans will die every day from firearms, many times that number will be grievously wounded. That is 93 graves that need digging and hundreds of emergency rooms slick with blood — every single day. And to what end? So that we can be proud of our nebulously-worded right to bear arms? Preposterous.
Gun ownership, possession, and use should be an earned privilege, not a right. Write your senators, your congressman, and your State legislators and tell them to repeal 2nd Amendment. It is the sole source of all of this unnecessary bloodshed and suffering — a child can see that.
Tell your legislator to repeal the 2nd Amendment and replace it with one that gives Congress — the people's representatives — the sole power to regulate the ownership, possession, and use of firearms.
1
It is obvious by now that bullets are the only vector for gun control. A gun without a bullet is a paper weight. Remove the .223 from the civilian marketplace, tax the 9mm relative to the collateral damage it causes, require that the purchaser of bullets has insurance (I doubt insurers would turn their backs on this market).
No matter how you want to twist the 2nd Amendment, it does not protect the cartridge; it couldn’t, they weren’t around when the constitution was ratified.
Control the bullet and control the carnage.
4
@HW Keiser Agree. Compare .223 and 9 mm ammo to pot. The ammo, for the most part, needs to come through a sophisticated manufacturing process. Yes, there is handloading but where would you get primers, powder, etc if there was such a prohibition? Pot, on the other hand, grows anywhere there is warmth, sunshine, soil and water. We have spent $ trillion locking up folks for possessing/selling pot. As a result we ave the court systems, cops and jails for those willing to manufacture and sell prohibited .223 and 9 mm ammo.
1
As the late judge and conservative legalist Robert Bork said of the Second Amendment:
(1989) “(It) guarantees the right of states to form militias, not for individuals to bear arms”.
(1991): “The National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is people’s right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks that it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that’s not the original understanding.”
(1997): “The Second Amendment was designed to allow states to defend themselves against a possibly tyrannical national government. Now that the federal government has stealth bombers and nuclear weapons, it is hard to imagine what people would need to keep in the garage to serve that purpose.”
3
@HapinOregon Bravo! I mentioned this in another post. Let the ignorant beware!!!!
Why anyone who wants a gun would make a plastic one with a 3-D printer seems farfetched since one can purchase a gun on just about any street in America, very very easily. Cheap too.
5
@CC it's all about owning the process of manufacture. I have a 3D printer and I think it's awesome I can make things at home (I also have a wood shop) that do interesting things. I could spend 8 hours making a part with my wood tools, or design a model and wait 8 hours and have the part. Either way, I get pride of manufacture at the end.
Nobody thinks these guns are competitive with profesionally produced guns. THey aren't. They break after a few uses. They're dangerous. Not the point.
...Mr Israel, thank you for the article and your efforts. It sounds like a story which continues repeating itself. We live in a country where 42% of the households own guns..over 300 million weapons in the U.S. We've seen multiple mass killings..and we'll see many more. It's very easy to obtain a gun, and it will always be that way. It's the American way - insidious as it is, it's part of our Country's fabric. There's a sick mentality here that's fixated on the First Amendment. I wish I could take them all and send them back in time to the 1700's - they could play with their guns all day and night.
1
The title of this article is a lie. There was no "caving' on plastic guns.
The 5th Circuit Court was the determining factor and the author notes, buried in the text, that technically the Undetectable Firearms Act remains intact.
It is up to the Congress - and rightly so - to move on this issue if they desire.
It was predictable that a Democrat would get white space here, to spin a story in an untrue direction.
6
@Objectivist
I disagree.
I think it will be a democrat, maybe many democrats who used to be republicans, who will put a stop to the proliferation of weapons of war in our society.
The NRA will be unmasked, the republicans who supported them will be disgraced and removed. School children and their parents, across the country, will breath a sigh of relief.
1
@Objectivist
I agree with your assessment of the headline to this opinion piece. The editors too often craft a headline to capture readers' eyes regardless of the actual content of the issue at hand.
That said, your comment that it was predictable that a democrat would spin the story in an untrue direction misses the point entirely. Mr Israel pointed out that it was Trump's administration in conjunction with the circuit court that enabled this inane ruling.
The core issue is that we have an administration and a court of appeals that makes it easier for both domestic and foreign terrorists to escape detection.
No surprise that the 5th court of appeals serves the former Confederate states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.
@Objectivist Of course Congress won't move on the issue. They, Trump, and most of the Republican establishment are bought and paid for by the NRA. Yes, they caved to the pressure of the NRA, and with President Traitor in charge, and Russian agents infiltrating the NRA, look for more unregulated guns, in direct violation of the US Constitution. “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
I’m furious with the US administration for this absolutely reckless act. This doesn’t just affect your gun-loving, Second Amendment-worshipping country - this affects the whole world. The sites should be blocked outside of the US in countries that have strict gun laws and don’t worship at the alter of the NRA.
My kids go to school without the fear that one day, one of their classmates, in a fit of rage, could go home and print a gun and commit a slaughter.
So sick to my stomach of the US and your corrupt government right now.
14
@DM We have amendments to the Constitution and a basic rule of law that does not permit simply making this illegal.
Also, it would be far easier for the classmate to buy an illegal gun on the street than print it. Heck, if they printed it and assembled it, and also managed to purchase ammo (you can't print ammo), at that point they'd probably have forgotten being angry and would start being interested in modelling things in 3D and using printing to make useful assemblies.
1
"... one of their classmates, in a fit of rage, could go home and print a gun ..."
You and Steve Israel have something in common -- neither of you know that guns require *ammunition*.
Why can I own a gun and not an RPG? Why can I be arrested for serving alcohol to a minor and not for giving her/him a gun? Why do I need training, a license and registration for my car and not for my gun? Why is the ATF still using paper files? Money. So, why is money more important than life?
6
The republicans are okay with this because the NRA advocates for the gun lobby, not the 3D printer lobby. I guarantee if a gun manufacturer started promoting new "convenient and lightweight polymer handguns that anyone can use!" the NRA and the republican party would be calling this law outdated and an infringement on the second amendment.
I think I have lost my mind.
How is this possible ?
@John Brown It's simple. Guns are just mechanical assemblies. Many of the parts of the gun don't need complicated manufacture. Most of the parts can be printed using standard 3D printers and the remainder of parts purchased and processed and assembled at home. It's sort of an expected consequence of technology (this country has been manufacturing guns for hundreds of years, and 3D printing has recently become something that people can do at home).
2
Putin must be happy. His cultivation of the NRA, like his efforts with Trump, are paying excellent dividends.
The school year will be underway soon and printed weapons, in some cases in brightly colored plastic and cartoonist designs, will begin to appear in time for the beginning of the NRA/republican sponsored hunting season for school children.
Yes, Putin must be ecstatic.
3
Judge Kavanaugh's past rulings indicate that he is a man who has
never met up with a machine gun he didn't approve of.
It seems a safe bet that he will also like the new 3-D ones.
4
Stop this madness - Vote for Democrats and Independents on November 6, 2018. Flip the House and Senate and then demand the new Congress enact legislation banning any weapon that can evade detection.
1
Mandating affixing metallic or detectable parts is akin to Aesop's fable about the mice voting to bell the cat. Worthless as regards protecting the pubic from nefarious individuals. This is a question where either something is either allowed without restriction or it's banned in toto as terrorists and criminals will just ignore the "attachment" requirement - so, by failing to implement a full ban, thanks for enabling the maliciously driven to evade metal detectors (schools, courts, prisons, airports anyone?).
Being able to construct undetectable firearm is a wholly separate matter from any conversation over the right to bear arms (otherwise gun shops would be allowed to sell belt fed machine guns for home defence). The important element is preventing production not about carrying.
This is aside from the fact that the internet is not a walled garden and so these designs will be available to those in countries where firearms are by law restricted without any recourse by the citizens of those states to democratically chose how to keep safe their own respective societies (and this could include countries that have or do host terrorist training camps).
Aiding terrorists directly by providing designs for undetectable firearms makes the publishers of these designs and patterns terrorist supporters and they should be treated as such. It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.
Everyone still feel safe to fly or drop your kids off at school?
3
How is ammunition given the same Second Amendment protection as Glocks and AR-15s? Our framers carried powder horns and lead shot and manually reloaded.
The place to apply stringent control is at ammunition factories and distributors. Firearms are beautiful works of engineering by themselves. They only kill when loaded. Stop selling prepared ammo without licenses.
3
"How is ammunition given the same Second Amendment protection as Glocks and AR-15s?"
That's a good question, although "Arms" are not useful if they cannot kill or threaten to kill, so it seems unlikely that any court would be convinced that "Arms" does not include ammunition.
"Stop selling prepared ammo without licenses."
Or regulate ammunition based on specific criteria, such as muzzle velocity, caliber, and bullet mass.
1
People who shoot a lot load their own ammunition. There are serious limits to restricting firearms and ammunition when there are so many owners and items with nobody having any way of knowing who has them and where. Registering guns, licensing users, requiring licenses to buy ammunition’s are steps that improve the chances of reducing gun violence with prevention and to be able to enforce laws. But some people will still find ways to get guns or make weapons with which to misuse them. Imagining that all who find guns interesting as threats to others is mistaken and counter productive.
1
It's not illegal to publish instructions on how to build an atomic bomb. Whether you can actual build one is a practical problem, not a technical one. So why the urgency to outlaw the publication of instructions for making guns using 3d printing? Actually making a plastic gun is another thing, but that's a law enforcement issue. You cannot arrest someone for making a bomb, of any kind, unless they actually make one. That's not justification for banning publication of instructions on how to make one. And limiting First Amendment rights to aid law enforcement isn't something Liberals have historically been supportive of. Arguing that the Founders, who used quill pens, couldn't comprehend producing guns using 3d technology is disingenuous. No, the Founders couldn't comprehend the internet either, but that's not an argument for restricting Freedom of Speech. Like so much other proposed gun regulation, this is an idea that hasn't been sufficiently thought through, and is a curious abandonment of Liberal values. In fact, it has the stench of a "law and order' mindset.
6
Unlike making a nuclear or atomic bomb, where materials are guarded and enrichment nearly impossible, 3D printing is growing increasingly available and easy to use. It will be no different than a laser printer within 20 years.
You don't know your law.
Pretty much everything you said is wrong.
You can definitely be arrested, at the federal and state level, for possessing bomb making materials.
Computer systems run at extremely high speeds. Essentially, the printer will fabricate the items coded as fast as it can form the media into the shapes conveyed to it with the code. The code with the printer amount to an item that can be made real in very little time and in secret.
But the genie is already out of the bottle: People can buy 3D-printers and people can get the files if they really want. A ban would be mostly symbolic.
6
Enough with the NRA. In a world of violence plastic weapons must be banned and the law needs to be modernized to prevent any loopholes.
The goal must be to protect all our citizens not gun manufacturers and the NRA, an organization of very questionable ethics and with a likely serious Russian collusion problem. After these revelations, it is about time that the NRA loses its influence with Congress.
17
@IN
1) Plastic guns are already banned. They don't have serial numbers. This is like if a federal law passed stating that you can't write on the internet explaining how to roll a marijuana cigarette.
2) The lack of support from the NRA proves that the NRA isn't about protecting gun manufacturers. Manufacturers don't want people to be able to easily make firearms at home. This proves the NRA is about protecting the right of the people to be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.
2
This article plainly admits the role of law enforcement is to somehow trace a weapon used in violent crime to a perpetrator. If that were NOT the case.. what would be the concern about firearms lacking serial numbers?
So... Mr Israel admits that the intended victim must be victimized... and later, when that victim is potentially dead.. LE can somehow trace the weapon to a perp. Great. He does not admit that the intended victim has an inherent RIGHT to protect himself against violent crime.
I think this phrase is particularly interesting : "the people who used quills to write the Second Amendment couldn’t comprehend that one day guns would be produced by 3-D printers"
I doubt that Steve Israel can divine what the writers of the Constitution might have comprehended. I think the individual manufacture of firearms is exactly the kind of thing they were trying to protect.
9
@Joey The writers of the Second Amendment told us what their intent was: "the security of a free state" being protected by "a well regulated militia." They did not guarantee anyone a right to produce a gun. So we do have a hint as to what they might think about allowing everyone to arm themselves with completely unregulated weapons.
92
@EvelynU Read “To Keep and Bear Arms” by Joyce Lee Malcom. The founders couldn’t have been more clear that Americans have the right to be armed without permission from the government. The whole Bill of Rights is a check on the government. It’s denying history and logic to suggest that the 2nd Amendment diverts from those other checks.
1
@C-W BIG difference between restricting the right TO be armed and the ability of any government to restrict the TYPE of arms one may bear. Otherwise the National Firearms Act would have been deemed wholly unconstitutional (rather than just deficient under Haynes v. United States).
Can't buy a plastic gun? No problem. Buy an handgun/ shotgun/ AR15. The difference is that, compared to a wholly plastic gun, it's tough to sneak one into the cabin of an aircraft or into the Capital Building.
Is it possible that the advent of printed guns is good news for gun safety advocates? That when guns can be widely manufactured privately the NRA and its gun company patrons will wake up one day and say "Gee, this is bad for business"? And then actually cry out for regulation?
Ok, I'm grasping at straws. But it's a thought.
84
'... the NRA and its gun company patrons will wake up one day and say "Gee, this is bad for business"?'
Very few people have the time, money, patience, and skills to make a homemade gun. Israel is basically worrying about hobbyists.
1
@Steve McLaughlin Right. This isn't in the gun manufacturers' interest, so why is the NRA for it? Why?
You think the NRA will cry out for more regulation? Having sold arms to every reclusive, depressed malcontent, every fringe alt right wing nut, racist, homophobe, and misogynist, that the NRA will be upset to yield a fraction of a percent of market share to do-it-yourself folks? Optimist does not begin to describe your point of view.
It is already illegal to possess a firearm without a serial number (which upon person goes through an FBI check), with perhaps the exception of some antiques. How would making 3D printing a firearm without a serial number be any different? This article does not make any sense. The concern represented is _already_ illegal. This is only a difference in manufacturing method, and so one would have to ban or make illegal all 3D printing or owning 3D printing materials. Given that will in all likelihood not happen because of all the benefits of 3D printing (such as printing household devices and eventually, appliances, then people will necessarily also print devices that they are not supposed to print. The same methods and materials to make appliances can be used to make firearms, it's only a design question - which I believe was Wilson's point (he is a cryptoanarchist I believe) And even if there is a "failsafe" in the printer hardware or software, they will build a printer without a failsafe or disable the failsafe. Humans make tools. This is a case of confusing legislation with enforcement, and short of inspecting every citizen's basement, it appears to be unenforceable given new technology (3D printing). Given contemporary technology, we will all be able to print all kinds of machines and devices with a few years and firearms are built out of the same parts as other tools and appliances. This opinion piece is not well thought through.
8
@Vox - The law, if it exists, regarding guns without serial numbers is state or local; there is no requirement, federally, that a homemade gun have a serial number, unless you plan on selling it or giving it away, etc. It would be a simple matter, though, for someone to engrave a serial number onto a printed gun. There's nothing magical about serial numbers. Even when tracing a gun, the first time a gun is transferred outside a FFL transfer, the trail ends and is generally not picked up again. Remember, there's no central registry of guns or owners to check a serial number against.
12
@Rosen Otter thanks for your feedback and additional points, especially regarding the non-FFL transfer issue. You are right about the problems with the trails ending. As I understand it, Alaska, Kansas, Maine, and Wyoming are the only states in which a person can have an unregistered pistol - registration requires a serial number - and those pistol serial numbers and registrations are held by the state, (though the transfer issue is a problem) and carry it without a permit - otherwise it is illegal to carry any kind of unregistered pistol, homemade or otherwise. My point is, barring those four states, how is regulating 3D printing going to help? The behavior of possession of the weapon is already illegal. And there is no methodology by which we can enforce the control additive manufacturing to disallow printing a gun art vs. a car part - at least not one that could not easily be disabled (turn off or delete the part of the code that excludes the part and press print).
I do not understand how publishing the codes to create these weapons on a 3-d printer falls under First Amendment rights. I would think the codes are intellectual property that cannot be published willy-nilly. Aren't we attempting to stop the theft of intellectual property by China?
10
"I would think the codes are intellectual property that cannot be published willy-nilly."
That depends on the license. The "GNU General Public License" lets people freely copy and share software. Similarly, there are "Creative Commons licenses" that allow works to be shared. Google for more.
6
@L M D'Angelo
The government tried to outlaw encryption as well, and freedom advocates won out under free speech. You cannot outlaw mathematics. that is a tremendous win that pushed back a total police state slightly
The code for printing a gun is similarly free speech, it is just a design, a few lines of code
4
Some of the people who have made guns with these printers oppose all gun laws and are eager to share their work with others.
Don't confuse bits with atoms.
If you want it to be illegal to make a plastic gun, that's understandable. Making meth is illegal, too.
You're mistaken to step further by suggesting that any description of how a plastic gun might be made should also be illegal. Chemistry recipes are freely shared.
Reasonable arguments can defeat themselves by overreaching.
16
What was being made illegal was not a description of how a plastic gun could be made, but rather code to program a 3-D printer to produce one. This code is instructions, legible only to a machine; a human would have to reverse engineer it to get a description of what was being made. The code is like a mixture of chemicals that when combined in a test tube under heat would produce meth; the printer is the test tube.
28
@sdavidc9
Even assuming for simplicity that all your premises are correct, your conclusion that the instructions themselves should be illegal is still a mistake. It conflates the digital description with the physical act.
Of course, the code is not just a "physical description," it is part of the manufacture of the gun.
In other words, in the writer's apparent view, owning or making a gun whose purpose it is to evade metal detectors can be made a crime. But not aiding and abetting anyone who wants to do so. Seems like a distinction without much of a difference. But in the absolutist view of the Second Amendment, why shouldn't people have the right to bear arms in an airplane? Or in a courtroom, or perhaps at a Presidential inauguration?
After all, there might be a bad guy on the plane who needs shooting. Good enough for you gun-worshipping folks.
3
Sure - let's pass a law banning them - because - of course - that has proved so spectacularly successful in the past.
9
@SteveRR
I get that you're being snarky and arrogant. As usual.
But what are you referring to? When have we ever banned firearms?
And if that won't work for you, what will?
Or are you saying, as I imagine you are, that allowing everybody everywhere to print up any number of undetectable guns is a fine thing, and good for America.
1
"... difficult to identify with X-ray technology and metal detectors."
"The downloadable files will reportedly include AR-15-style rifles, ..."
Those weapons fire METAL ammunition, which will show up in x-rays.
5
They might just fire potatoes, or uncooked, dried peas, with a jolt of hairspray.
4
As the mechanisms increase in complexity but must hold to close specifications, they become extremely difficult to produce without significant flaws. Flaws in a firearm can be dangerous to the users. Even with a 3-D printer some devices will require a lot of expertise to produce reliable machines. I would worry about simple hand guns for now.
6
@QPN
What makes you think that people won’t manufacture plastic bullets? Plastic ammunition? Those would still be lethal; undetectable; and certainly easier to print out on a 3-d printer than the gun itself. But I guess no foolishness is too much for gun fetishists.
What are you going to do, outlaw CAD? The whole point of 3D printing is that anyone can make the design with raw materials. How about focusing on meaningful laws instead?
12
Rhino is used for this "additive manufacturing," 3D printing stuff, not cad.
The the DJT administration caves...
User gets to fill in the blank. I'll start with "glider trucks". (Google it.) Scotty's gift to the USA upon his exit. Scotty's ruling exempts certain diesel trucks, produced by a friend, from any emission regulations.
7
Israel is blatantly ignoring why the government made the settlement — The State Department employed prior restraint against Wilson and while it is true that the Supreme Court turned down hearing an attempt at a preliminary injunction against the government from stopping Wilson’s distribution of code, it’s highly unlikely that the 5th Circuit would rule against Wilson if the MERITS of the case were argued and probably even less likely the SCOTUS would have ruled against the 1st Amendment claims made by him. It would have set binding legal precedent. This settlement doesn’t do that.
The NRA and NSSF are not big fans of Defense Distributed. Wilson writes in his book that they acknowledge him just barely. Industry representatives avoid him. It’s really only 1st and 2nd Amendment activists that have embraced Defense Distributed and what Wilson does.
He sells a CNC mill that allows people to make their own AR15s, AR10s, and 1911 and Glock pistols in the comfort of their own home and he’s sold over 6,000 of these in a few years. When his site at defcad.com goes live, it will be a platform where anyone may contribute and download 3D models, files and blueprints of guns, parts, and accessories. This is actively giving the means of production to the public for free, undermining (albeit not greatly) the typical means of manufacturers selling their goods.
Attempts at curtailing access to guns are as futile as prohibition of drugs and alcohol. American Gun Control is dead.
6
@C-W
"It’s really only 1st and 2nd Amendment activists that have embraced Defense Distributed and what Wilson does."
More than enough...
4
"He sells a CNC mill ..."
Those are used to make METAL parts, so the resulting guns can be detected with metal detectors and x-rays. Israel is fretting about guns that are supposedly "difficult to identify with X-ray technology and metal detectors."
"Attempts at curtailing access to guns are as futile as prohibition of drugs and alcohol."
That's a bad analogy -- drugs and alcohol are addictive, guns are not.
"American Gun Control is dead."
Possession of various arms will continue to be regulated by law. Ammunition control is coming soon. :-)
4
This is insanity. This is NOT about denying free speech. This IS about regulating access to deadly weapons. The possibilities for violence with this DIY technology are endless and mindblowing. For example, how about a distraught teenager with a grudge taking one to school? And you can go on and on from there.
34
What is wrong with these people! I honestly cannot even remotely understand this gun crazy culture! There are only a few reasons for a gun like this: 1) be able to sneak a weapon past security, as in airports. 2) you legally can’t own a firearm due to a criminal conviction but now can print your own to circumvent the law. 3) commit crimes with untraceable weapons.
214
@Jeff You're right Jeff. They are members of the Cult of the Gun. The gun is God. There must be no restrictions on their God. Human deaths? Sacrifices to their God.
@Jeff 4) to encourage authoritarian solutions within democracies. Who would want to do that?
They are like all humans, they are intrigued by tools and gadgets and different ways of doing things. One thing that psychology teaches is that people who do not share similar preferences can think of each other as not just having different interests but seriously disturbed.
1
-YES- Now the news media and other Liberals know how the Gun Rights people feel every time they keep coming up with ways to regulate guns with so-called "Common Sense Gun Control" proposals ad nauseum !
Remember this is/was a First Amendment Right ruling!!!
7
Nice of you folks to educate the bad guys. As a reminder from history, no cop had ever been killed by having his body armor defeated by a "Cop Killer Bullet" until the media started squawking about them.
4
@cannoneer2 It's always been tough to educate the good guys without educating the bad guys. Somehow we need to eliminate the forces that produce bad guys, and promote the forces that produce good guys. Easy, right?
@cannoneer2
Would you provide evidence to support your claim?
Have you researched this issue comprehensively?
Have you found incontrovertible evidence that supports your opinion that "no cop had ever been killed by having his body armor defeated by a 'Cop Killer bullet' until the media started squawking about them"?
Before making such an accusation against the media, it might be better to produce proof to support your argument.
If it turns out that your claim is true, then it will be time to begin another discussion.
The media have a responsibility to report, in a professional, responsible manner, in order to keep the public informed.
1
Yes. That's it! The media causes gun deaths. How could I have been so stupid as to have not seen that after all these years?
3
The Framers, when authoring the Second Amendment, did it in response to an oppressive government that expressly forbade citizens to take up arms against the crown; they included the words well-regulated militia, because a centralized army hadn't been codified yet, and the implications of a national body that protected each state was still new. They needed the regulation to maintain a standing army. They couldn't have imagined this monstrosity.
The 2nd is followed by the 3rd, the rule against quartering. The two amendments are inextricably linked. Colonial citizens needed guns to form a militia to keep the British military out of their houses, literally.
Plastic guns are not part of need to protect ourselves. They aren't for keeping government out of our lives, for self-defense, or hunting. They won't keep American soldiers from occupying our houses. They will do one thing only: allow people to kill without warning.
And that violates our First Amendment right, which is to speak and assemble freely.
31
@R Mandl
that is the opposite of what the framers did. They were well aware of the dangers of a standing army, they specifically forbid it, it was not just something that had not developed
And they emphasized the militia as one way, the. ultimate and most important way, to lerner the people retain the power
1
@R Mandl Knives would do the same, kill with out warning. Would a sharp long knife violate your first amendment? No.
@Wake
Well, we have a standing army now, and gun ownership now isn't linked to militia membership anymore. So, clearly times have changed since the Founders wrote the Second Amendment.
It is hard to stop shaking my head in disbelief. The leader of the free world? The greatest country in the world? The shining city on the hill?
15
Don't modern digital color copiers have a built in (ROM or software) disabling system that prevents the copying of currency?
Couldn't that sort of thing be possible with 3D printers, if not for the misguided tantrums of the 2nd Amendment addicts?
28
@S. B., this is not a likely solution. Currency is a fixed image that can be detected. The design of the 3D printed gun can be easily be modified to look different but operate in the same way. It would be very hard to detect what is a barrel verse a tube, what is trigger vs a lever.
This editorial deal with 3D printed guns and the vague term "gun violence" is very weak.
"The people who used quills to write the Second Amendment couldn’t comprehend that one day guns would be produced by 3-D printers." I guess no comprehension of computers, anesthesia, child porn, or cell phones. What does this have to do with anything? The earth keeps spinning.
How naive to think that terrorists won't use 3D prints if outlawed. I strongly suspect street thugs will make them to.
Like to many anti gun "editorials" the gun is the entire problem. Never go after the people that shouldn't have guns, be on the streets, and in many cases not in the US.
11
The gun IS the problem. The one known equation is More Guns = More Death.
5
Go to Home Depot. Buy a water pipe and a screw on cap. Tape it to a 2X4. Drill a hole in the cap. Insert a 12 gage shotgun shell. Use a nail and hammer to fire it.
It's a more effective gun than anything printed from plastic.
12
"Use a nail and hammer to fire it."
And maim yourself with the recoiling case and back blast. If you are going to give free advice, back it up with a reliable source.
Hear, hear...
@Mtnman1963: I've not seen a lot of real world plastic guns. My guess is they only work in limited situations, because plastic can melt or shatter (unlike metal) -- it isn't very good with heat or friction -- it's not very durable.
In the 1992 Clint Eastwood film "In The Line of Fire"...villain John Malkovich makes a plastic gun that can be gotten through FBI security and used in an assassination attempt against the POTUS. But the gun is only able to be used for two shots. He makes this by hand, and without 3-D printing.
So the idea of a plastic gun is hardly new.
and the people who used quills to write the Second Amendment couldn’t comprehend that one day guns would fire at about 600 rounds per minute, as the AR-15, using 60- to 100-round magazines as some of the guns that Stephen Paddock used to shoot more than 500 people in Las Vegas had been modified to fire nine rounds per second.
45
A 3-D printed gun will not fire 600 rounds, it is unlikely to fire more than one round, with poor accuracy and with a likelihood of injuring the shooter. A reasonably functional gun needs some metal parts, or some miracle plastics that could be sprayed by a 3-D printer, but at the same time would be impervious to high pressures and temperatures inherent in shooting a firearm. It is a very difficult task to create such a material, and it will probably happen only in distant future, if at all.
Of course, even one round could kill someone, but my advice to gun control crowd is to choose their battles carefully - this is not IT..
4
@Gretna Bear The people who wrote the second amendment assumed that people could own cannon that could throw a 48-pound iron ball six miles, or 96 pounds of 3/4 pound iron balls around 800 yards. That's the equivalent weight of fire of sixteen full-auto M-16s firing for eight minutes. In eight minutes, the cannon could fire twice.
4
@Gretna Bear
"and the people who used quills" couldn't comprehend the internet, cellphones, TV, Facebook, Twitter, etc, etc.
SO WHAT!
1
It doesn't matter what the material is, the 2nd amendment protects our right for plastic, metal, or whatever. We ban plastic, 3-D printed gun and what's next? To slippery for me.
8
@Geoff S. No, it does matter what the material is. The Supreme Court has held that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership are OK. Plastic guns can, and probably are intended to, evade the normal screenings for guns going onto airplanes and into public places, such as courthouses. Are you ready for plane hijackings with plastic guns?!! Restrictions on plastic guns are reasonable, consistent with the Second Amendment and clearly needed.
80
@Geoff S. The 2nd Amendment protects the right of civil militia members to keep and bear arms. As far as I can tell, it does not protect the right of random individuals to go into the business of making guns for terrorists and lunatics.
46
Geoff S....slippery slopes scare you, but an unregulated national shooting gallery feels great ?
Perhaps you need a refresher course in gun math, logic and per capita death rates.
68
May I ask - how effective have copyright laws been on preventing online piracy? How many government raids would you like to find servers hosting such files?
The article conflates a statute restricting possession of a dangerous object with a settlement acknowledging that there isn't strong legal backing to restrict computer code that only represents the instructions on how to do something.
By that measure, books that describe how to make explosives from household goods would also be subject to restrictions. Or of how to grow poison in your garden.
What makes 3d printer instructions different from the blueprint for a tank? The schematic for a trebuchet? A drawing of a sword? The path of restricting "dangerous instructions" is one that's more fraught than it might appear at first glance.
20
@David Nailed it. Recipes are protected speech.
5
'The path of restricting "dangerous instructions" is one that's more fraught than it might appear at first glance.'
Indeed, there is a whole Wikipedia article on "Molotov cocktails".
6
It’s not instructions like 1) buy a milling machine, 2) buy steel stock, 3) mill, cut, manufacture, 3) assemble, 4) remove before going through metal detector. Its the code to produce the weapon which effectively completes steps 1 & 2 by hitting “print”, and eliminates step 4. We wouldn’t allow a printed plastic car on the road without regulation. We can’t regulate plastic weapons? Talk about a slippery slope!
2
Think of all of those deluded, secluded souls who are praising America for its outdated and dangerous 2nd amendment 'rights', 'Let Free Dumb Ring!', itching to get their trigger fingers on those too cool plastic guns.
Nothing like cozying up to that gun at night, gun under the pillow, always at the ready, ready to shoot down the bad guys.
Now the majority of Americans who want background checks and sensible gun regulations have one more place to fear for their safety, at airport locations and on the airplane.
Of course Trump does not ever have to worry as he has 24/7 secret service protection, something few of us could ever afford, or even want.
48
@Tim B
Tim, This was a First Amendment Right ruling, not a Second Amendment Right.
6
@Dennis
Actually, Dennis, it wasn't any kind of ruling.
It was capitulation by an administration fully owned by the NRA and dependent upon the Russian funds funneled through that great American organization.
You super-patriots kill me. Maybe literally, someday.
@Tim B What are sensible gun regulations? Banning Magazines that hold a certain number? Mag swap only takes 1 second.
Banning certain grips like the Assualt weapons ban? Holding a gun doesn't make it more dangerous.
Background checks? They already exist.
Ban on semi autos? They are by far the most common firarm type and all legal pistols are semi auto say from revolvers that fire just as fast.
The second admendment is not outdated, infact it was way before it's time. The only other nation to have such a view on self ownership and the duty to defend the state was England who made it mandatory for young men to pratice bow training on Sundays.
I wish the Brits still had fire arm rights as Rotherham and the other cases of thousands of women getting raped would have never happened.
The Party of Death scores another win.
"Drop Dead, America !"
Guns Over People 2018
178
I do want to apologize again to "generation lockdown".
My generation has completely failed to protect you.
I am ashamed that our president met with and promised to protect the Parkland student survivors - and then turned his back on them.
I promise to vote against this madness.
220
Your piece is a bit misleading. What material are the projectiles made out of?
11
@Trey P These guns are designed to use normal, off-the-shelf ammunition. In the case of the AR-15 CAD files, the part you would 3D print is called the lower receiver, and is the only part regulated by the ATF. Every other part that goes into an AR-15 can be ordered by mail and shipped directly to your house. The printed lower receiver will accept all those parts and results in a fully functioning AR-15. Yes, it won't be as durable as a store-bought AR, but it will work.
10
Although I understand how they work, thank you for your good explanation for those who don’t. The misleading part of the article is that in no way do they allow one to walk undetected through a medal detector or X-ray machine assuming that someone actually has ammunition in the firearm. Sure, could an unloaded all plastic liberator go through a metal detector? Yes. But what is the person going to do with it? Throw the piece of plastic at someone?
8
"What material are the projectiles made out of?"
Good question. The ammunition needs be made of metal, because of the pressure of firing. Therefore the ammunition will show up in x-rays.
This OpEd is just more anti-gun hysteria from uninformed liberals.
14
Won’t this hurt the gun manufacturers? Where is the NRA or NSSA on this?
25
@SXM They’re not warm to him.
2
@SXM, My guess is in denial, much like the post office and emails, cell phones and landlines and Blockbuster Video and streaming services.
1
Great. Anyone can carry a gun anywhere. Now, anyone will be able to make all the guns they want. Use once, throw away. All it costs are the plastic resins. Not bad for any criminal enterprise.
Oh but they wear out quickly. Doesn't matter. These are limited use weapons. Boom, boom you're dead. Kind of like a disposal flashlight. They get you through the storm and then throw the thing away.
Man I feel so free! That second amendment freedom is surging through me right now. With this technology, society will not be able to keep guns out of hands of anyone. Good people, bad people, violent people, insane people, and very young people. Disturbed teenagers teenagers wont have to steal their parents guns anymore. They will make their own. Gosh, all those techie kids out there who are poorly socialized and live inside a virtual reality internet world can now personalize their weaponry. They can really make a statement with their handcrafted guns when they go on a shooting spree.
Oh joy! Let freedom ring!
291
@Bruce Rozenblit
Bruce,
This was a First Amendment ruling, and had nothing to do with the Second Amendment!
1
There DNA will be all over the gun. Criminals aren't going to use these guns. They are a joke. Stop and frisk. If you wan't to stop criminal violence with firearms you have to make people prove they are lawfully in possession of the gun. I would have no problem being stopped and frisked by the police if I have a permit to carry. Only felons have a problem with this.
@Bruce Rozenblit are you implying any law that says you can't make a plastic gun will work? I'm a criminal, I own a 3D printer, I will get away with it, what do? I'mma break the law and make me a undetectable gun.
You think this won't happen in Europe? Or Australia? 3D printers exist there, certain shells aren't hard to make. You are living in a fictional reality if you believe that you can stop people from making such guns.
I'm a fairly advanced user of 3d printers, for work and hobby. The ideal that a serviceable firearm can be built from a consumer grade 3D printers is not true. It would be much easier to build the old hoodlum standby zip gun with a common drill press than a plastic gun from layered extruded plastic parts from a FDM type printer that most of us use for 3D printing. The truth is that the first victim of a 3D printed firearm will be the person pulling the trigger when the gun blows up in their face.
75
@E. YouTube is replete with many videos of people making functional firearms with parts that were 3D printed. Mostly, it’s the receiver or frame that is printed and the barrels are usually still metal.
The original Liberator was able to shoot a few rounds of .380 with each printed barrel and that was in 2013.
@E.
Yeah, I agree. You can make a gun but it is only good for a few shots at most (assuming it is about the same size as a standard gun), has to be manually reloaded and the accuracy isn't good. So it really isn't that much more dangerous than a knife in the hands of someone that knows how to use one.
True. But you still need metal parts to make a functional gun. Use of plastic in making guns is nothing new (Glock), but fully plastic guns are not feasible at this time.
Register all firearms. If the firearms is unregistered it’s illegal to possess. Require that all firearms contain chips or some such devices that identify them with a scan.
162
@Casual Observer There’s over 400 million guns in private hands across the 50 states. More than all world militaries combined. Good luck.
7
All well and good to say all firearms have to be registered. However I doubt a criminal gang member or terrorist will have any qualms about manufacturing 3D plastic guns as needed. Made tonight, used tomorrow. You would think even those fools in Congress would figure out that they are enabling their own assassins...
CW - no problem. We’ll register the bullets instead.
What is the purpose of making guns that are not detectable by metal detectors? To kill people and to avoid detection. It's that simple and not a complex subject. I don't think the 2nd Amendment intended for plastic guns to be created to protect people from the government or for self protection. Common sense, which is in short supply today in the US, tells me that nothing good will come from people making lethal plastic guns. Technology is not always beneficial for humanity, especially not in this case.
152
@jeff bunkers,
Your assertion is plausible but not conclusive. Some not all people would want to make their own guns to commit crimes.
Yes outlaw them so you can all rest easier or don't and you can rest just as easily. These things are useless.
I agree these could easily be banned with no second amendment problems. It would probably have to be done at the state level, but could also be done at the national level. So far, I have seen nothing in second amendment case law that grants Americans the right to possess undetectable guns. But, then again it will be up to the Supreme Court. And I think even with this swing to the right, if you read Scalia in the the Heller Case, its pretty limited when it comes to the right to possess a firearm to protect yourself. On the other hand the field is wide open until cases are brought to the court. So far I don't believe anyone on either side wants determinations by the Court, mostly because most people are happy as it stands today.
Let's just face it, shall we? First off, 'The Trump Administration Caves...' is Trump's signature move. If that wasn't apparent before Helsinki, it sure as heck is after.
Second, it's way past time to take a realistic look at the Constitution and make some substantial changes. Wise and prescient as the drafters may have been, they simply could not write a document in the 18th century that would prove appropriate in every detail to the realities of the 21st century. The Second Amendment is a death warrant for tens of thousands of Americans each year - and now we learn that 'our Second Amendment people' are pawns of the Russian government as well. Repeal the darn thing.
And then let's take a look at a system of 'representative government' that gives a vast, nearly unpopulated state with less than a million residents, like Wyoming, the same number of seats in the Senate as a state with 50 times the population and an economy larger than most of the nations on earth, like California or New York.
Those 'founding fathers' (yet another anachronism) did their best, but let's get real. They could not have foreseen any of this; and wise as they were, if they came back today, they'd write a different document.
17
@chambolle
However, a revision of the Constitution is a dangerous thing. The libertarians are salivating at the thought. It would give them permission to get rid of the Bill of Rights altogether. They would love it. We could just be the uber-corporation of their dreams: the United Corporation of America. All rights would belong to the corporations (and the people who own and run them) and all responsibilities would belong to the masses. Be careful what you wish for. Or "When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers."
Why do so many so-called law abiding upstanding good citizens, who would not identify themselves as gang members or criminals, want easily available non-detectable guns? Why to do the want them freely flowing in society?
Why? It's not an academic exercise or a philosophical question as these weapons are very real.
Like the "law abiding" are fond of saying, if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. Likewise if you have a legitimate need and legal permit for a gun you have no need for a non-detectable gun and it would be in your best interest to make sure that others didn't have them.
32
All people are tool makers. Our brains developed from tool making. All people are intrigued by different ways of doing things. They quickly learn how to use useful gadgets and never think twice about how adeptly they can do so. Making things with 3-D printing systems is interesting, fun, and people will try to make any kind of familiar items that they can. Seldom do people think cautiously about whether they should or should not use something new. For example, people love riding powered scooters and do so recklessly on sidewalks with no regard to the consequences beyond doing it.
2
@Marie it's pretty simple, it'll make it harder to regulate firearms. We already had a "Assualt weapons" ban, that banned extremely popular fire arms that had been legal for over 50 years. Most regulations on fire arms do nothing but make it harder for law abiding citizens to legally obtain firearms.
You ask why make it easier for people to break the law? Because these laws in their eyes are unjust. Putting a short barrel on a AR makes it less lethal but yet it's illegal, being able to make one in your own home without the authorities knowing is the name of the game.
No one will wan't these guns. They are useless for protection. There are much better options. Only people who know nothing about firearms would even fantasize about having one of these useless weapons. And to tell you the truth if they want to waste their money on a useless weapon so be it. If they think it will protect them in a crisis situation they are dead.
I would imagine this is an issue that the NRA could agree on with Mr. Israel. If I were a gun manufacture, I would lobby hard to stifle the competition of homemade guns. It could have a real impact on marketshare and profits. Isn't that what's it (NRA) all about.
4
@Harry Not really, it is ugly, not easily carried, and I bet only shoots a few bullets before you need a new one.
A big hubbub about nothing . The technology is here, it's inexpensive, the blueprints, the designs, the printers are out there. You realize that "Those Guys" (terrorists) are pretty technically savvy, some are probably genius level (being a religious fanatic doesn't necessarily mean they're stupid), Cody Wilson doesn't have the market cornered as far as AR15 3D printer manufacturing goes, he is strictly amateur.
Anyway, this law didn't pass because it really does nothing, do you think anyone that sees the written law, "must have some steel/metallic part inside it"some where, couldn't get into the manufacturing program and edit out the part where you insert the steel plate? Any CAD/CAM system can do it.
3
Steve Israel is making a big mistake.
The problem is that the same principles that would ban the plans for guns (not guns, but the mere plans for them) were used to ban cryptography as well, because crypto is a munition. The government lost this one.
And next they could be ban a chemistry text discussing the manufacture of an explosive, or a drug. Perhaps we could burn old chemistry texts in libraries.
The First Amendment reigns supreme, in this and the other cases.
Pragmatically, you can't ban information. If this law succeeds, you will have sacrificed the First Amendment, but the plans for guns (and drugs and explosives) will still be available, because information cannot be bottled up.
(Critics will now say "what about child porn" but the usual counterargument that child porn is the product of a crime, not speech, applies. It is doubtful that we want to deploy the full anti-child-porn legal machinery against someone who chats about gun parts or gunpowder manufacture.)
5
Could we have an absolute ban on guns that do not have a detectable metal component with stiff jail penalties for any possessing such a gun.
Why does the NRA oppose such a requirement.
Child porn is disgusting and I understand why there are laws against possession.
The belief is that a person who owns child porn is a potential child molestor and if we arrest and prosecute a person who owns such filth we can prevent the potential molestor before he molests a child.o
2