Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by azrael on Monday October 20 2014, @03:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the does-not-pass-go dept.

3ders.org has an article on the conclusion of a trial in Japan of a man for making a 3D printed gun.

Earlier today, a verdict was reached in the infamous 3D printed gun trial that was being held in the Yokohama District Court in Tokyo, Japan. Presiding Judge Koji Inaba found the 28-year-old Yoshitomo Imura, a former teacher at a local college, guilty of violating laws controlling firearms and swords. For printing at least two workable guns using a 3D printer, Imura was sentenced to two years in prison.

Since Imura's arrest in May, a number of Japanese distributors of 3D printing technology have organized a '3D printer Promotion Council' to both educate people about the possibilities of this technology, but also to warn consumers of its dangers. They are currently looking into possibilities to avoid such events in the future, including better cooperation between the industry and the government and a blacklist of design data.

Related Stories

Landmark Legal Shift for 3D-Printed Guns 92 comments

For those in the US with a combined interest in 3D-Printers, intersections of the 1st and 2nd Amendments, and legal precedents; Cody Wilson has been fighting the US Government for half a decade.

Short version: after Wilson uploaded his 3D pistol plans to his site, over 100,000 people downloaded it - this drew the attention of the US authorities, who tried to use the International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to force a take-down.

The authorities argued that by posting the 3D printer plans for a firearm, Mr. Wilson was effectively exporting firearms, and subject to federal regulation. Eventually the Department of Justice dropped the case, paving the way for DIY'ers to publish such things freely.

The article cites 'promises' made by DoJ to move the regulations to another department.

Wired's article: A Landmark Legal Shift Opens Pandora's Box for DIY Guns (archive)

Related: The $1,200 Machine That Lets Anyone Make a Metal Gun at Home
Japanese Gun Printer Goes to Jail
Suspected 3D-Printed Gun Parts and Plastic Knuckles Seized in Australia
FedEx Refuses to Ship Defense Distributed's Ghost Gunner CNC Mill
Man Who Used CNC Mill to Manufacture AR-15 "Lowers" Sentenced to 41 Months
Ghost Gunner Software Update Allows the Milling of an M1911 Handgun


Original Submission

[Updated] Defense Distributed Releasing Gun Plans, President Trump "Looking Into" It 76 comments

Trump says public availability of 3D-printed guns 'doesn't seem to make much sense'

President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he is "looking into" the availability of plans for the 3D printing of guns, writing on Twitter that he had already been in touch with the NRA on the issue.

"I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn't seem to make much sense!" the president wrote on Twitter Tuesday morning.

After a years-long legal battle, Defense Distributed, a Texas-based group, has announced plans to release instructions on Wednesday for guns that can be created by a 3-D printer, including a handgun and parts for a semi-automatic assault rifle. Although plans were not supposed to be available until Wednesday, instructions have already begun to appear online for download, CNN reported Tuesday.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday October 20 2014, @03:08PM

    by VLM (445) on Monday October 20 2014, @03:08PM (#107841)

    and a blacklist of design data.

    Oh that will work really well. I can print swords for my RPG miniatures but scaling up would be illegal, LOL. Good luck there. "you can't print something with a hole, because a round could be chambered, or something with moving parts, because that could be part of a firing mechanism, so just stick to harmless tentacle shaped dildos (this being Japan, after all)"

    I did not know the .jp suffered from the American disease of blaming all criminal activities on harmless inanimate objects so as to not be accused of "judging".

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday October 20 2014, @03:55PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Monday October 20 2014, @03:55PM (#107857)

      blaming all criminal activities on harmless inanimate objects so as to not be accused of "judging".

      That's a misrepresentation of the pro-gun control position.

      Those who support gun control don't blame the gun for the criminal activity: If they did, they'd be pushing for putting the gun on trial and locking them up rather than the person who's holding it when he kills someone.

      What they think is that "person with criminal intent" is less dangerous than "person with criminal intent with a gun". Cops, soldiers, martial arts instructors, etc agree on this point - while there are techniques that will increase the odds of survival if faced with an armed assailant, the odds are still very much in favor of the armed individual, even if there are other armed people in the vicinity. Hence the goal is to try to separate people with criminal intent from the weapons that make their attempts at crime much more damaging to those around them. That's why they propose measures like background checks to make it easier for a dealer to avoid selling guns to people convicted of violent crimes and/or committed to a mental institution for illnesses that can cause violent outbursts, and mandatory gun safety training for people who want to legally own weapons.

      Very few in the US is proposing taking away guns used for hunting, self-defense, target shooting, and other completely legitimate uses of firearms. For some reason though, saying "We should try to not sell guns to crazy people and murderers and armed robbers" gets translated to "Take away everyone's guns", usually with an implied threat to the gun-owner's manhood, when you look at the arguments put forward by the NRA and similar organizations. (Another reason I really don't trust anything the NRA says: They keep claiming Obama is coming for your guns, but the only gun-related change that Obama has put through made it legal to carry concealed weapons in national parks if you're allowed to carry under state law.)

      And for the record, while I don't own or carry guns, I have very close friends who do. I'm not against citizens having guns, but I am interested in reducing the rates of murder and armed robbery, and other countries' experiences suggest that some degree of gun control will help in accomplishing that. I also have serious concerns about those who are putting together private arsenals and training themselves for reasons that are most completely expressed in The Turner Diaries, and those who are engaged in organized efforts to turn guns on the government and its agents such as Cliven Bundy: They're basically making the argument that their guns should have the right to overturn the will of the voters as expressed by the elected government, and while I don't much like the elected government I consider it a big improvement over armed warlords.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20 2014, @04:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20 2014, @04:44PM (#107870)

        Men are disenfranchised.
        Their vote is worthless next to women (who vote as a block).

        America was not intended to be a woman's democracy.
        It was intended to be a rational (white) man's country.

        Violence is the only check left.
        When it comes the police will likely be the militia against the federals.
        (Not ranchers like Cliven Bundy, they'll make a small part, but not the large force)

        Police are armed like militia now. The feds think they can control everyone and every municipality forever.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday October 20 2014, @08:42PM

          by c0lo (156) on Monday October 20 2014, @08:42PM (#107966) Journal

          Men are disenfranchised.
          Their vote is worthless next to women (who vote as a block).

          America was not intended to be a woman's democracy.
          It was intended to be a rational (white) man's country.

          Violence is the only check left.

          Huh? Let me see if I understand you correctly:

          * "The problem is American men lose their power to women."
          * "The solution is violence."

          Did I get it right?

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
          • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday October 21 2014, @12:58AM

            by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday October 21 2014, @12:58AM (#108043) Journal

            Shh! Quiet! We are trying to keep the perv posting long enough for the FBI to triangulate a physical location.

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 20 2014, @04:44PM

        by VLM (445) on Monday October 20 2014, @04:44PM (#107871)

        Its all in the details of the implementation.

        Criminal with a gun is bad inevitably transubstantiates into the only thing worse than a criminal with a gun is a law abiding citizen with a concealed carry permit.

        I am strongly in favor of training before activities, including legally required mandatory training before activities. I like the mandatory hunter training program we have in my state. What I don't like is training for possession. First its usually implemented as a poll tax. Lets make it expensive enough that white people can afford it but not black people, that sort of thing. Thats how concealed carry training has worked out where I live. Another problem is when my grandfather died and my grandmother inherited his guns, shooting sports was not her thing so I see no need to give her a felony conviction and take away her right to vote and lock her in prison and throw away the key merely because her husband died and she isn't into shooting sports. If as you claim, an inanimate object is not inherently wrong, whats so bad about leaving it inanimate inside the locked gun case where she doesn't even know the combo? There are possible solutions to the problem all horribly complicated. Requiring training within a year of gaining possession. Make the law toothless so my grandma can't possibly become a felon. A byzantine level of legal complication. Maybe the best solution is not to require it for mere possession, and existing activity based training is rational and reasonable (aside from the poll tax issue used to keep guns away from blacks)

        Sure we're technically not taking away anybodies ability to hunt, just making it a felony to have a gun in your car within 2000 feet of a school, even if school isn't in session. And sure, our schools are located such that there is no pavement in the city more than 2000 feet from a school. But we're not technically making "going hunting" a felony because in theory if you lived in a cave in the Rockies out west there might be a place you could legally drive around with camping and hunting gear in your car without getting a felony. Its the same game they play successfully with sex offenders. They're not allowed within 2000 feet of a school so the city has a building code that you're not allowed to zone residential unless all units are within 2000 feet of an elementary school "for the children". Its all a big scam. With the sex offenders I don't really mind, but making it a felony for any hunter to drive thru or park within our city is pretty offensive to me.

        I agree with you that Obama is a good Republican and I'd almost vote for him. I was a Republican before the neo-nutcases came in and kicked all the normal people out and O would have pretty much fit right in with us. He's a total warmonger but at least domestically he's not bad. The problem with O is you give away your civil rights to a "really nice guy" and then some nutcase comes into power in the future and things get all Fed up. Look at Germany in the late 20s. Paul von Hindenburg, not so bad of a guy, what me worry? Sure give the .gov total control, what could possibly go wrong? Well look who came after him. When Hillary takes over, I don't think things are going to be quite so rational in .gov. Thats the danger in giving away your rights... a basically good leader, even if you do disagree with some choices, doesn't need them or want them and won't abuse them, it won't hurt to give them away, but what happens when a lunatic rises to power?

        "putting together private arsenals" Usually this means registration and making "lists" and taking away the "wrong" guns from the "wrong" people (blacks, jews, etc). How you implement this without totally screwing up is a mystery. Also if a collector has 35 Colt 1911 pistols, he probably can't do any more damage after the first 4 or so, yet the poster children for the proposals are all serious collectors. Finally there's usually an aspect of cluelessness, non-hunters think hunters own "a" gun, but the shooting sports are full of guys with tricked out duck hunting rigs and a varmint rifle and a deer rifle and a turkey gun and a dove shot gun and they are all quite different and there seems to reason to force them to buy and sell before and after each season or play paperwork shuffling games (well now that deer season is over I filed paperwork so my wife owns my deer rifle). It really doesn't matter. These are the same people who keep telling us that the 2nd amendment may as well be repealed because the .mil so overpowers us that a mere deer hunting rifle has not legit purpose under the constitution anymore. Need to make up their minds!

        Finally as a voter I have no influence whatsoever due to our failed political system. The will of the voters is not being expressed. However, just like everyone else, I won't do anything about it as long as bread and circuses keep flowing. I fail to see any philosophical reason to oppose gun ownership in a post-societal collapse environment. Its not like an attempt at a ban will prevent the collapse or even slow it down, it'll just make the end result more gruesome if only crooks are allowed firearms. The rest of your argument boils down to crazy people gonna do crazy things, so making life really difficult for non-crazy people will somehow help, for no apparent cause and effect reason... if you're planning to personally overthrow the government, you're already nuts, so criminalizing being nuts isn't going to help anyone or fix anything. The only people who will suffer from those gun laws would be the non-nuts non-treasonous non-overthrow people, and the actual nuts will be completely unaffected, because... they're nuts!

        Daydreaming about a magical way to punish nuts while not harming the good people is nice, but it doesn't exist and the best approaches so far have the opposite effect of hurting good people while not even slowing down the nuts. So when you find yourself in a hole, and want to get out, first step is stop digging. Maybe even repeal some of the dumbest, most counterproductive gun control laws? Maybe repeal all of them? It does seem on a local level that the more intense the gun control laws, the more of a hellhole to live in the locality is... a little cause and effect experiment might help.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20 2014, @04:49PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20 2014, @04:49PM (#107873)

          "with the sex offenders I don't really mind"

          I hope one kills you.

          The Old Testament allows men to have female children as wives.
          Deuteronomy 22 28-29 (read in hebrew).

          Also YOU do not have a wife. You have a master. She can and will get rid of you as she pleases.

          You have no voter influence because women can vote. They put pressure as a bloc while men are fractious.
          Your vote has been diluted to nothing, as was intended.

          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday October 20 2014, @05:00PM

            by VLM (445) on Monday October 20 2014, @05:00PM (#107879)

            Also YOU do not have a wife. You have a master.

            Well, we don't know much about AC. Not where he lives, works, his name, his facebook page, blood type, DNA sample, or fingerprint.

            But, AC is married. That's one thing we know for sure LOL.

            • (Score: 3, Funny) by Sir Garlon on Monday October 20 2014, @05:37PM

              by Sir Garlon (1264) on Monday October 20 2014, @05:37PM (#107892)

              If anything, he *used to be* married.

              --
              [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
            • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday October 20 2014, @05:52PM

              by Thexalon (636) on Monday October 20 2014, @05:52PM (#107896)

              And he doesn't seem to understand that the whole point of marriage is that of course she can leave at any time, but that you should be so good to her and good for her that she wouldn't want to. (And the same thing is true in the other direction: She should be such a joy in your life that you wouldn't want to leave even if you though you could at any time.)

              --
              The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
            • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Monday October 20 2014, @05:53PM

              by dyingtolive (952) on Monday October 20 2014, @05:53PM (#107897)

              AC better hope he's not British. I hear you get two years for that now.

              --
              Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday October 20 2014, @09:20PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday October 20 2014, @09:20PM (#107980) Journal

          Good points, but I would posit that guns are so 20th century. Drones and their children seem a much better choice for aspiring change agents.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20 2014, @06:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20 2014, @06:21PM (#107905)

        From your link

        In Japan, you can put your 9-year-old on a two-hour train ride by herself to Disneyland Tokyo and not worry for a second about her safety.

        And you can do that in most other places too (for example, probably not in Syria). I walked either 2km or 1km to a bus stop to go to school as a 7 year old. So what is a big deal now? Boogeyman behind every bush? Or paranoia on behalf of parents? Our world today is safer than it was in the 1950s or 1900. In Japan kids go to school or bus by themselves not because it is "safer in Japan". They do so because maybe society is not as paranoid as in some other places, where kids can't go to school without giving them a ride as the 500m walk is "too dangerous".

        Take places like Senegal, as an example. Do their kids get chaperoned to school too?

        Perceptions, not reality is what this is about.

        The same thing with guns. For some reason, there is a perception that guns are there to protect you. There is nothing further from the truth. Guns kill. Every statistic is against the idea that guns protect lives. Fortunately, it seems that Japanese know this and hence have strict gun controls that clearly prevented many massacres. The same situation exists in China where gun control saved many lives. Just look at number of stabbings in both of these countries - in US those most likely would have been shootings with many more deaths.

        As to a verdict of 2 years, it is not just for printing a gun. It is also for distributing and thereby deeming to promote printing of other such weapons.

        Imura reputedly also disclosed data about 3D printing guns online, which weighed heavily against him. The judge said that these actions encouraged imitation and that he therefore bore grave criminal responsibility.

      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Monday October 20 2014, @08:14PM

        by Arik (4543) on Monday October 20 2014, @08:14PM (#107957) Journal
        "What they think is that "person with criminal intent" is less dangerous than "person with criminal intent with a gun". Cops, soldiers, martial arts instructors, etc agree on this point - while there are techniques that will increase the odds of survival if faced with an armed assailant, the odds are still very much in favor of the armed individual, even if there are other armed people in the vicinity. Hence the goal is to try to separate people with criminal intent from the weapons that make their attempts at crime much more damaging to those around them. That's why they propose measures like background checks to make it easier for a dealer to avoid selling guns to people convicted of violent crimes and/or committed to a mental institution for illnesses that can cause violent outbursts, and mandatory gun safety training for people who want to legally own weapons."

        All of which is directly contradictory to the common law legal principle of 'innocent until proven guilty.'

        Yes, it's absolutely a good idea to keep people with criminal intent away from weapons - IF you can find a way to do it, without in the process depriving those with no such intent of their rights (including their right to bear arms and defend themselves.)

        But you cant do that - 'intent' is not something that can be stuck on a scale and weighed. It's weighed by courts, based on indirect evidence, ONLY AFTER a criminal *act* has occurred. Outlawing 'intent' rather than action is a very slippery slope.

        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday October 21 2014, @01:41AM

          by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday October 21 2014, @01:41AM (#108048)

          Yes, it's absolutely a good idea to keep people with criminal intent away from weapons - IF you can find a way to do it, without in the process depriving those with no such intent of their rights (including their right to bear arms and defend themselves.)

          The 2 standards I mentioned:
          1. Those that have previously been found guilty of shooting and killing somebody. Now, obviously, that standard isn't perfect, but given what we know about recidivism somebody looking to buy a gun shortly after they get released from jail for shooting somebody is probably planning on shooting somebody.

          2. Those who have been committed to mental institutions for diseases that are known to cause violent outbursts. As in the kind of person who would shoot their postman thinking that he's an alien spy or something.

          The proposed mechanism is that we block the legal sale of weapons to those kinds of people by implementing a universal background check on people who want to purchase a gun, regardless of whether that is from a dealer, gun show, or private sale, which would catch both the criminals and the crazy people. That's obviously imperfect: Some will acquire guns illegally, and it's also possible that these people wanted to buy guns for completely non-criminal purposes. But it seems like it would be worth a try to reduce the body count, and I don't equate these kind of measures with jail time or fines and the like.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 1) by Mr. Slippery on Tuesday October 21 2014, @03:48AM

            by Mr. Slippery (2812) on Tuesday October 21 2014, @03:48AM (#108085) Homepage

            The proposed mechanism is that we block the legal sale of weapons to those kinds of people by implementing a universal background check on people who want to purchase a gun, regardless of whether that is from a dealer, gun show, or private sale, which would catch both the criminals and the crazy people.

            Criminals and crazy people should be under supervision by prison guards, parole or probation officers, or psychiatrists. Not by gun store clerks.

            If you can't trust someone to have access to guns, you can't trust them to be living unsupervised. Background check schemes are predicated on the idea that we have a list of people we don't trust. Ok, fine. Why are these people walking the streets? Either they should be locked up, or someone with the appropriate training and legal authority should be checking up on these folks regularly, not just to see that they aren't planning crime but to help them with the skills to build a non-criminal life.

            It's absurd to put that on Grandma Alice when she puts an ad on Craigslist to sell Grandpa Bob's old hunting rifle. It's asinine -- indeed, violently insane -- to suggest that the state should force her into a cage at gunpoint for not filing the right paperwork in doing so.

          • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:02AM

            by dry (223) on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:02AM (#108112) Journal

            The way it works in Canada is certain weapons are basically banned or hard to get a permit for. This includes sidearms. Generally to own a legal weapon you have to have taken a short firearms course and it's illegal to sell a weapon to someone who hasn't taken the course. The only people who are actually banned from owning a legal weapon are people who a Judge has banned, usually at sentencing.
            There are also laws on storage and such.
            None of this having whole classes of people who are blanket banned, often for non-firearm related charges and none of taking away other rights such as to vote, which of course includes voting for a change to the law that you broke.

      • (Score: 1) by Mr. Slippery on Tuesday October 21 2014, @03:36AM

        by Mr. Slippery (2812) on Tuesday October 21 2014, @03:36AM (#108080) Homepage

        Those who support gun control don't blame the gun for the criminal activity: If they did, they'd be pushing for putting the gun on trial and locking them up rather than the person who's holding it when he kills someone.

        A prohibition law -- be it for guns, booze, or other drugs -- by definition makes the object itself the crime.

        What they think is that "person with criminal intent" is less dangerous than "person with criminal intent with a gun". Cops, soldiers, martial arts instructors, etc agree on this point

        No, not really. I'd rather have a person with criminal intent and a gun than criminal intent and a can of gasoline. Choosy mass-murderers choose fire and explosions to kill lots of people. In close quarters I'd rather face someone with a long gun than a knife, it's a lot easier to wrestle a shotgun or rifle away from someone than a knife. (I would rather, of course, face someone seeking to overcome me with friendship by buying me a beer.) It is simply not that hard to kill someone without a gun: despite the easy availability of firearms in the U.S., 30% of our homicides already are perpetrated by stabbing, clubbing, beating, and other non-firearms means.

        Also, you've neglected the fact that a defender with a gun -- and the training and will to use it -- is safer than a defender without a gun. Americans defend themselves with firearms at a rate estimated between 64,000 and 2,500,000 times a year (yes, those are huge error bars, my best guess is on the order of 100,000).

        I'm not against citizens having guns, but I am interested in reducing the rates of murder and armed robbery, and other countries' experiences suggest that some degree of gun control will help in accomplishing that.

        No, actually, they don't. Gun prohibition laws have very little effect on crime, because they keep guns away from bad guys about as well as drug control laws keep heroin away from junkies. In Baltimore City, in 2011 90% of those arrested for murder had criminal records [baltimoresun.com] and so were legally banned from owning guns, but Maryland's string gun control laws didn't stop them from killing. A cross-state comparison of homicide rates [unreasonable.org] shows no effect of "gun control" laws on homicide, nor does a cross-country historical analysis [harvard.edu].

        If you want to reduce violent crime (which, BTW, has fallen about 50% since its peak in the early 90s), stop wasting time and perpetrating violence by locking up people for owning the tools of self-defense. Work on fixing our legacy of racism, our economic injustice, our broken mental health and criminal "justice" systems.

        • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:14AM

          by dry (223) on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:14AM (#108115) Journal

          And yet if you compare murder rates between Canada and the US, once you subtract gun deaths, they're pretty close. As well it is a lot easier to accidentally kill someone with a gun then a knife.
          Of course at this point in time, talking about gun control in America is useless as so many guns are in circulation whereas somewhere like Japan gun control is possible.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Monday October 20 2014, @04:06PM

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Monday October 20 2014, @04:06PM (#107860) Journal

      Japan has strict gun control laws [wikipedia.org]. 3d printing and CNC milling offers a way to get around the tight control. Not the best way [wordpress.com], but a way.

      Why Japan is so safe from guns [nydailynews.com]
      Japan: Gun Control and People Control [davekopel.com]
      Japan's yakuza mobsters becoming 'Goldman Sachs with guns' [ndtv.com]

      Anyway, I'll be watching to see whether an activist like Cody Wilson or 3D printer manufacturers and improving technology make a more sturdy and permanent printable firearm a reality over the next few years.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Monday October 20 2014, @03:27PM

    by Sir Garlon (1264) on Monday October 20 2014, @03:27PM (#107848)

    TFA is heavy on photos and light on details, but the salient sentence seems to be:

    Presiding Judge Koji Inaba found the 28-year-old Yoshitomo Imura, a former teacher at a local college, guilty of violating laws controlling firearms and swords.

    In other words, owning a 3D printer is not a license to own firearms in Japan. Not exactly shocking. Presumably if the guns had been legal to own and hand-make in Japan, Imura would not have been charged with a crime. It's hard to tell.

    I will say "I didn't know it was illegal to possess a working firearm without a license" is not much of a legal defense.

    What I'm trying to say is it looks like the object of manufacture, not the method of manufacture, was the critical element of the case. It seems to me much more about gun laws than about there being anything special about 3D printing. (One can argue whether gun laws are good or bad, but I submit that is a separate topic.)

    The antithesis, that guns should get a free pass from existing regulation *if and only if* they were manufactured by 3D printing, is ridiculous. I don't think anyone is trying to defend that position.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by epitaxial on Monday October 20 2014, @03:39PM

    by epitaxial (3165) on Monday October 20 2014, @03:39PM (#107851)

    How is this any different than a machine shop making a gun where guns are illegal? Other than the skill level required the outcome is the same.

    • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:21AM

      by dry (223) on Tuesday October 21 2014, @06:21AM (#108118) Journal

      He also published the instructions. I'd imagine a machine shop publishing detailed instructions on manufacturing a gun would also feel the full weight of the law.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20 2014, @03:47PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20 2014, @03:47PM (#107854)

    From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: The weapons law begins by stating "No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms or a sword or swords", and very few exceptions are allowed.[96] However, citizens are permitted to possess firearms for hunting and sport shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure.[97]

  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday October 20 2014, @04:30PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday October 20 2014, @04:30PM (#107864) Journal

    How about not telling anyone else if you print out a gun?

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20 2014, @04:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 20 2014, @04:37PM (#107865)

    Japan needs a revolution.
    That judge needs to be burned alive.

    Blood needs to run to kill the people lording over the pleabs.

    • (Score: 2) by skullz on Monday October 20 2014, @05:29PM

      by skullz (2532) on Monday October 20 2014, @05:29PM (#107887)

      No.

    • (Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Monday October 20 2014, @05:36PM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Monday October 20 2014, @05:36PM (#107891)

      Right, advocating murdering people that are pro gun laws is a great way to gather people to your cause.

      I bet you do have a newsletter.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @03:08AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2014, @03:08AM (#108066)

      I agree, everyone who doesn't agree with me on every subject needs to be executed.