Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday October 03 2017, @04:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the gotta-have-guns dept.

The Ghost Gunner has been updated to allow the CNC milling of a much more popular and accessible form of firearm: a handgun:

For the past five years, Cody Wilson has applied every possible advance in digital manufacturing technology to the mission of undermining government attempts at gun control. First he created the world's first 3-D printed gun, a deadly plastic weapon anyone could print at home with a download and a few clicks. Then he started selling a computer-controlled milling machine designed to let anyone automatically carve out the body of an untraceable AR-15 from a semifinished chunk of aluminum, upgrading his provocations from plastic to metal. Now his latest advance in home firearm fabrication allows anyone to make an object designed to defy the most basic essence of gun control: A concealable, untraceable, and entirely unregulated metal handgun.

On Sunday, Wilson's gun rights advocacy group, Defense Distributed, announced a new release of software for his computer-controlled milling machine known as the Ghost Gunner. The new code allows the 1-foot-cubed tabletop machine—which uses a spinning bit to carve three-dimensional shapes with minute precision—to not only produce untraceable bodies of AR-15s but to carve out the aluminum frame of an M1911 handgun, the popular class of semiautomatic pistols that includes the Colt 45 and similar weapons. Wilson says he plans to follow up soon with software for producing regulation-free Glocks and other handgun models to follow.

Wilson's goal now, he says, is to do for small arms what Defense Distributed did for AR-15s when it first released the $1,500 Ghost Gunner milling machine exactly three years ago to the day: Give people the ability to make a lethal weapon at home with no regulation whatsoever.

M1911 pistol.

This story came out before the mass shooting in Las Vegas, on the third anniversary of the initial release of the Ghost Gunner, just in case you were wondering.

Also at Ars Technica:

"It's a certain type of person who builds and enjoys an AR-15—that's a lot of gun, and most people don't feel the need to have a big ol' battle rifle," Wilson says. "But we believe lots of people are interested in the conversation about an untraceable, concealable handgun. It's been on the roadmap the whole time for this project. It's just always been a question of how we get there, and it ended up being very, very difficult—kinda like the brass ring of the project, if you will."

Previously: 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

Original Submission

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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @12:24AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @12:24AM (#577248)

    That is the sole purpose of the 2nd Amendment; it never had anything to do with hunting or sport shooting.

    Well, at least since the 1970s when the NRA dumped millions of dollars into lobbying and enodowing the "right" kind of law school chairs.

    So you're saying it previously was understood, rightly or wrongly, to be about hunting or sport shooting? That it was understood to be unrelated to the American Revolution, where militias armed with military-grade weapons fought the regular army of a government they deemed oppressive, and eventually won independence from that government? That it wasn't believed to be related to documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights:

    Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    (Or maybe that was understood to be about hunting and sport shooting too?)

    Sorry, no. Reasonable people can and have argued about whether the Second Amendment protects an unlimited right (protecting, for instance, those guns only useful for hunting, or as range toys, as well as those useful for combat), or whether it's limited only to such arms, and such methods of keeping and bearing them, as actually serve a militia interest. But holding it to not be part of the Founders' anti-army, pro-militia tendency, and to instead be about hunting or sport shooting, is and always has been profoundly unreasonable.

    Interestingly, for the 200 years before that, the 2nd was never taken to mean that and was cited only once or twice in all court decisions.

    You say until the federal government infringed the right of the people to keep and bear arms (for perspective, the 1970s came right after the Gun Control Act of 1968, the second of two major federal gun control laws), nobody much worried about the rule keeping them from doing so? How shocking!

    One of those "once or twice", by the way, would be United States v. Miller in 1939, concerning the then-recent National Firearms Act of 1934 (the first major federal gun control law). Check out this bit from the decision: (Note that neither Miller nor his lawyer appeared before the Supreme Court, thus the Court was unable to take notice of facts that the judges themselves may have been aware of personally, and that the defense would surely have raised, such as the US Army's use of short-barreled shotguns in World War I.)

    The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

    Oh no, the Supreme Court appears to have misunderstood the 2nd Amendment! They keep referencing the militia and military equipment, when they should have been talking about hunting and sport shooting equipment! The 1970s NRA must have got to them... perhaps with a time machine?

    Or maybe, just maybe, you're full of it.