Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Landmark Legal Shift for 3D-Printed Guns

posted by martyb on Thursday July 12 2018, @11:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the Maybe-Don't-Try-this-at-home dept.

AssCork writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Landmark Legal Shift for 3D-Printed Guns | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 92 comments | Search Discussion
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 mhajicek on Friday July 13 2018, @03:52AM (6 children)

    by mhajicek (51) on Friday July 13 2018, @03:52AM (#706499)

    What I find, I won't say "amusing", but rather "interesting", is that in the 1930's the Supreme Court was of the opinion that military weapons were constitutionally protected, and that a sawed off shotgun could be banned expressly because it was NOT a military weapon.

    --
    The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 13 2018, @05:52AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 13 2018, @05:52AM (#706532)

    which was still wrong. sawed off shotguns were use in ww1. they called them "trench guns."

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday July 13 2018, @11:38AM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday July 13 2018, @11:38AM (#706579) Homepage Journal

      For that matter, they're used by the US right now in urban environments for breeching. They blow locks off things a lot better than a rifle. The rifle's still more generally useful though so you're not going to see them used for much of anything else.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.

  • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday July 13 2018, @06:24AM (2 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Friday July 13 2018, @06:24AM (#706536) Journal

    In Heller, Scalia walked the Miller decision way back. Miller was a weird case anyway -- the defendant died before the appeal and only the Government presented any argument or briefing. Miller's and Heller's discussions of short barreled shotguns may have different had there been some sort defense by Miller because way back when, when highway robbery was a real thing, Ithica manufactured a short barreled shotgun for defensive purposes, the Ithica Auto & Burglar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf_ENP3QyAE [youtube.com]

    We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html [cornell.edu]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14 2018, @02:39AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14 2018, @02:39AM (#706889)

      I love that phrasing -- it would be "startling" for the previous decision to mean what it plainly says, so let's find something else for it to mean.

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

        by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday July 14 2018, @05:14AM (#706949) Journal

        Personally, I think Scalia danced around Miller because if he overruled it, there would be a serious question about whether it is Constitutional to ban automatic firearms.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 13 2018, @07:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 13 2018, @07:11PM (#706744)

    any excuse to violate people's rights. that's the government, who's supposed job is exactly the opposite.