Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 9 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Thursday July 12 2018, @11:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the Maybe-Don't-Try-this-at-home dept.

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

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by Immerman on Friday July 13 2018, @03:45AM (6 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Friday July 13 2018, @03:45AM (#706496)

    It seems to me there could be a grey area in the "renting access to a 3D printer" realm. I don't sell you parts - I sell you the usage of my machine, and for your convenience here's a selection of popular objects you might like to print. So long as you're the only person to operate the machine or ever lay hands on the gun parts, existing laws would seem to have nothing to say on the matter.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday July 13 2018, @04:50AM (5 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Friday July 13 2018, @04:50AM (#706522) Journal

    I have a hazy memory of some guys who had a CNC machine and the gcode to do a lower receiver. They would rent the machine to customers who would initiate the process by pressing a button. They went to prison for illegally manufacturing firearms.

    Now, my seaches haven't turned up this case so maybe my memory is faulty, but it might be worth investigating a bit because if my recollection is correct, this business model will get you a long vacation at Club Fed.

    • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday July 13 2018, @04:56AM (4 children)

      by hemocyanin (186) on Friday July 13 2018, @04:56AM (#706523) Journal

      Still can't find the case but there is an ATF ruling on the subject: http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/FirearmsIndustry/atf-ruling-2015-1-manufacturing-and-gunsmithing.pdf [atf.gov]

      Any person (including any corporation or other legal entity) engaged in the business of performing machining, molding, casting, forging, printing (additive manufacturing) or other manufacturing process to create a firearm frame or receiver, or to make a frame or receiver suitable for use as part of a “weapon ... which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” i.e., a “firearm,” must be licensed as a manufacturer under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA); identify (mark) any such firearm; and maintain required manufacturer’s records. A business (including an association or society) may not avoid the manufacturing license, marking, and recordkeeping requirements of the GCA by allowing persons to perform manufacturing processes on firearms (including frames or receivers) using machinery or equipment under its dominion and control where that business controls access to, and use of, such machinery or equipment.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 13 2018, @07:07AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 13 2018, @07:07AM (#706538)

        > controls access to, and use of

        AND use of. They don't control the use if the user controls the machine.

        • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday July 14 2018, @05:10AM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday July 14 2018, @05:10AM (#706947) Journal

          If you pay you can use it. If you don't pay you can't use it. Thus the owner controls the use of the machine.

          You can argue that "controls" means something else, but then you've already lost because you are being prosecuted, and even if you win (and you CAN totally lose) you lose. The process is punishment enough.

      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday July 13 2018, @01:43PM (1 child)

        by Immerman (3985) on Friday July 13 2018, @01:43PM (#706609)

        Hmm, that would seem to cover my scenario, wouldn't it?

        Might also prove a rude wake-up call for maker spaces, as they'll likely be on the front line of public access to high-quality 3D printing hardware, as well as other automated machining tools. Best keep an eye on exactly what your clients are making.

        • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday July 14 2018, @05:11AM

          by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday July 14 2018, @05:11AM (#706948) Journal

          Before I got my own printer, my local makerspace was very explicit in the prohibition on using any of their machinery for making firearms.