Not so fast apparently.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ease-3d-printed-gun-plans-for-time-being.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ease-3d-printed-gun-plans-for-time-being.html
Federal judge blocks release of 3D-printed gun plans for the time being
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
JeffG
Member
They never did move to regulate pressure cookers. 
mcb
Member
They are at least 5 years too late. 3-D printed guns are all over the internet and people are creating and sharing new designs all the time.
You can't stop the signal
You can't stop the signal
Last edited:
FROGO207
Member
They should not seriously begin to worry until there is a safe to shoot completely plastic semi auto in 50 BMG.
All plastic ammo as well.
Seriously, we have had completely plastic firearms capable of shooting something since the late 50's----I had a squirt gun made of plastic back then.
All plastic ammo as well.Seriously, we have had completely plastic firearms capable of shooting something since the late 50's----I had a squirt gun made of plastic back then.
This is a 1st amendment issue, not a 2nd amendment issue. Whether the 3D printed guns themselves can or should be regulated (and they already are) does not tell us whether the knowledge/information as to how they can be made can be banned. This is a straight-up free speech case.
castile
Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 602
This really is moot, You can down load the plans for the liberator 3D right now on Pirate Bay torrent. There is a block of steel put in to make it legal to make. What is the difference between that and buying a 80% Glock type gun? This is liberal grand standing.
castile
Member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2012
- Messages
- 602
I believe they are called the liberator like the one GM made for the war. It was a single shot designed for close use to get another gun. I don't think I would hold one to shoot it. I believe they are made for 380. I would load down a ctg and shoot it though no full power loads in hand.
Riomouse911
Member
Media hyperbole and hysteria mongering linking their despised inanimate objects (guns) with their despised animate object (Trump) to drive their liberal pals into a frenzy. This whole overblown hoo-haa is clearly designed to get clicks and viewers to generate ad revenue.
“Undetectable” guns don’t exist legally, since at least a few metal parts are used in most 3-D guns which make them detectable. If one was made to be 100 pct plastic or a material that otherwise is impossible to scan (3-D or not) its already illegal and has been so since 1988.
Ground-off serial numbers on stolen guns have been an issue since the first sterilized gun was stolen, and those have been illegal for ages. It’s also illegal for a prohibited person to have or make a gun. So adding yet another law does what again??
I have a 3-D printed 1/3 scale AR 15 lower made of plastic on my desk. It would crumble if this material was used in any other 3-D printed firearm without metal parts to take the strain. I will guess the 3-D materials in the Liberator or other gun is different, or it’s literally a “single shot” good for at most a single shot before it destructs.
As Shakespeare wrote, “Much ado about nothing.”
“Undetectable” guns don’t exist legally, since at least a few metal parts are used in most 3-D guns which make them detectable. If one was made to be 100 pct plastic or a material that otherwise is impossible to scan (3-D or not) its already illegal and has been so since 1988.
Ground-off serial numbers on stolen guns have been an issue since the first sterilized gun was stolen, and those have been illegal for ages. It’s also illegal for a prohibited person to have or make a gun. So adding yet another law does what again??
I have a 3-D printed 1/3 scale AR 15 lower made of plastic on my desk. It would crumble if this material was used in any other 3-D printed firearm without metal parts to take the strain. I will guess the 3-D materials in the Liberator or other gun is different, or it’s literally a “single shot” good for at most a single shot before it destructs.
As Shakespeare wrote, “Much ado about nothing.”
mcb
Member
The Liberator design by Cody Wilson (Defense Distributed) was the first totally 3D printed gun (except firing pin and ammo) to successfully fire. This link is to the first public successful firing of the Liberator ()
Since the design for the Liberator was publish in May of 2013 there have been many revision to the Liberator and many new designed that are derived from it. There have also been many MANY other entirely unique 3D printed gun design floating around out there on the internet. There are also 3D printed lowers for AR-15/10 and probably a few firearm designs. When you look at the number of complete 3D printed firearm designs and versions of lower receivers out there in the public domain it is pretty impressive.
As other have pointed out. This is less about 3D printed guns and the legal aspects of making your own firearms (that is already legal to do) and more about the fact that the internet allows for the free distribution of this information and the government coming to grips with the fact that it cannot and should not do anything about it.
It is also possible to read other information online (or in old-fashioned books) that can potentially be used in illegal ways. You can read about insider trading schemes, or methods of embezzling funds and covering tracks with tricky accounting. You can read about how to make chemicals that are explosive. You can read about how to make smuggling compartments in vehicles. This is just another example of potentially-misused, truthful knowledge being inherent in the concept of free speech. Some people cannot see that because "GUNZ R BAD" is all they need to hear in order to switch off their brains.
Based on my recollection: Even the judge who gave the State Department the initial victory years ago recognized that, as to Americans, the 1st amendment (not the 2nd) protected their right to this information. It was only the argument that there was no way to prevent the information from being exported, and non-Americans not-in-America had no constitutional rights, that the judge used as a basis for curtailing the speech. That was always weak sauce (the 1st amendment can prevent an American from communicating to other Americans because a foreigner might hear the same speech???). But even that judge knew this was a 1st amendment issue.
Based on my recollection: Even the judge who gave the State Department the initial victory years ago recognized that, as to Americans, the 1st amendment (not the 2nd) protected their right to this information. It was only the argument that there was no way to prevent the information from being exported, and non-Americans not-in-America had no constitutional rights, that the judge used as a basis for curtailing the speech. That was always weak sauce (the 1st amendment can prevent an American from communicating to other Americans because a foreigner might hear the same speech???). But even that judge knew this was a 1st amendment issue.
LiveLife
Member
Latest development - https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/activists-3d-printed-gun-blueprints_us_5b616691e4b0b15aba9df36a
"Gun rights activist groups found a way around the temporary halting of 3D-printed gun blueprints by publishing another set of blueprints on a new website Tuesday, which they say is activity protected under the First Amendment
They created a website called CodeIsFreeSpeech on the same day that a judge temporarily halted the dissemination of the blueprints elsewhere.
'Through CodeIsFreeSpeech.com, we intend to encourage people to consider new and different aspects of our nation’s marketplace of ideas – even if some government officials disagree with our views or dislike our content – because information is code, code is free speech, and free speech is freedom,' reads a statement on the site, which was created by a variety of groups including the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation."
"Gun rights activist groups found a way around the temporary halting of 3D-printed gun blueprints by publishing another set of blueprints on a new website Tuesday, which they say is activity protected under the First Amendment
They created a website called CodeIsFreeSpeech on the same day that a judge temporarily halted the dissemination of the blueprints elsewhere.
'Through CodeIsFreeSpeech.com, we intend to encourage people to consider new and different aspects of our nation’s marketplace of ideas – even if some government officials disagree with our views or dislike our content – because information is code, code is free speech, and free speech is freedom,' reads a statement on the site, which was created by a variety of groups including the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation."
Doc7
Member
It’s really driving me crazy that the media is portraying the injunction as making it illegal to print 3D guns, and also that somehow Home built plastic guns are different than Home built
Metal ones. Here’s just an insane, illogical quote from SF Chronicle:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion...gton-needs-to-bar-guns-made-from-13121361.php
“Homemade firearms aren’t new, but a basement gunmaker generally isn’t allowed to sell such weapons. With unmarked, self-made plastic weapons, that limitation won’t exist at all.”
Metal ones. Here’s just an insane, illogical quote from SF Chronicle:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion...gton-needs-to-bar-guns-made-from-13121361.php
“Homemade firearms aren’t new, but a basement gunmaker generally isn’t allowed to sell such weapons. With unmarked, self-made plastic weapons, that limitation won’t exist at all.”
In fairness, the litigants have, by expressing their underlying views on gun rights and gun control, done a great deal to conflate the speech issues and the firearms issues. They themselves have said the point of this exercise is to effectively render gun control futile (apparently they've never noticed that the futility of the war on drugs hasn't stopped America from wasting trillions of dollars on that little windmill-tilt...).
Ultimately, there's a good chance the cooler heads in the judiciary will correctly analyze this as a prior-restraint First Amendment case and impose a suitably high standard on the government (which seems unlikely to be able to meet).
Ultimately, there's a good chance the cooler heads in the judiciary will correctly analyze this as a prior-restraint First Amendment case and impose a suitably high standard on the government (which seems unlikely to be able to meet).
harrygunner
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,045
Whoever applied the word "printer" to the manufacturing process may have thought that would capture public interest, relating it to something most people understand.
But, it was a bad idea since legislators respond to sound bites illogically.
We should start a trend and call airplane manufacturing plants "airplane printers", then watch Congress run around yelling "Oh no! now everyone will have a plane in their backyard!"
But, it was a bad idea since legislators respond to sound bites illogically.
We should start a trend and call airplane manufacturing plants "airplane printers", then watch Congress run around yelling "Oh no! now everyone will have a plane in their backyard!"
CapnMac
Member
Far too many seem bound to make this a simpler thing than it is.
I have built a number of 3d models in CAD. I have also adapted (some of) those models for 3d "printing."
There's a significant gulf between the two things. The former requires some knowledge and experience in the "how" a 3d model is generated (and there are significant differences in how AutoCAD, SolidWorks, and even Revit generate models). The "how" of the printer matters a great deal, too, since that drives how you mould the parts on the printer. Those parts need to be broken out and arranged for printing in an efficient manner. (It's all too easy to "print" parts badly; just as it's all too easy to machine things badly.)
Yet, the media (and far too many pundits) presume that the plans for a thing are the same as having a thing. I know of several fine 3d models of naval rifles. But, those models do not include springs or hydraulic fluid needed to properly assemble them as a finished item ( that, and 10m long 3D "printers" are more than a bit scarece on the ground).
There are some 3d "printed" guns out there, they are little more than glorified zip guns in one way or another. There have been some 3d "printed" AR lowers made, but to no great success, as the printing feedstock is not as strong around the buffer tube as it needs to be.(not without changing the outside dimensions significantly).
I have built a number of 3d models in CAD. I have also adapted (some of) those models for 3d "printing."
There's a significant gulf between the two things. The former requires some knowledge and experience in the "how" a 3d model is generated (and there are significant differences in how AutoCAD, SolidWorks, and even Revit generate models). The "how" of the printer matters a great deal, too, since that drives how you mould the parts on the printer. Those parts need to be broken out and arranged for printing in an efficient manner. (It's all too easy to "print" parts badly; just as it's all too easy to machine things badly.)
Yet, the media (and far too many pundits) presume that the plans for a thing are the same as having a thing. I know of several fine 3d models of naval rifles. But, those models do not include springs or hydraulic fluid needed to properly assemble them as a finished item ( that, and 10m long 3D "printers" are more than a bit scarece on the ground).
There are some 3d "printed" guns out there, they are little more than glorified zip guns in one way or another. There have been some 3d "printed" AR lowers made, but to no great success, as the printing feedstock is not as strong around the buffer tube as it needs to be.(not without changing the outside dimensions significantly).
CLP
member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,397
You can download the file and "print" an AR-15 lower receiver. That's the crux of all this. Forget "The Liberator".
The AR lowers that were being printed as of 4 years ago (the last time I was following this topic) would last for several hundred rounds give or take before developing cracks at the forward take-down hinge. I imagine the technology and material has improved in that time span. It's already out there and can't be bottled back up, but some folks don't know when to cry uncle.
I find the timing of the recent ATF classification of bolt action AR-15 uppers chambered for 50BMG as firearms interesting. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but it seems logical to me that the gov't would try to make uppers serialized should lowers be easily manufactured (though I don't know how much easier it can be to make a functional lower with all the 80% lowers on the market)
Last edited:
JTHunter
Member
dh1633pm
Contributing Member
I couldn't care less if the 3-D plans worked or didn't work regardless of a person's skill set. This is a 1st amendment issue. You have those rushing to condemn that which they know little about. If they can ban these, then they can ban anything. Download them. Store them. You can never ban what is already in wide spread circulation. It would like shutting the barn doors after the horses have escaped.
Don't confuse the efficacy of a ban with its legal enforceability. Marijuana is certainly in wide spread circulation, as was booze during the 1920's. Yet bans are (and were re: booze) in place, and people sure enough go to jail for violating the ban.
Prohibitionists aren't deterred just because they cannot win their war against ____.
But none of that means that the free speech claim at issue here is tough in any way. You can no more ban instructions on how to make a gun than you can ban instructions on how to grow marijuana.
Double_J
Member
The government tried to ban the export of PGP encryption software back in the 90's by using ITAR/National Security. The developers got around it by printing every line of code in a book and printing copies for cost. this issue has been solved before, and the Gov. lost then, and they will loose again if we play the game the right way.
mcb
Member
They have already lost. What we are seeing play out in the news and social media is simply the government deciding how much of our tax dollars they want to waste before they accept that they have lost.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
