
Is Printing a Gun the Same as Buying a Gun? - DanielN
http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/20/is-printing-a-gun-the-same-as-buying-a-gun/
======
0x12
This is not 'printing a gun', this is printing two passive parts that you
could just as well have whittled from wood or cast or put together in a
hundred different ways. The 'load bearing parts' of a gun are the barrel, the
breech and the trigger mechanism. For the sake of the argument let's pretend
that the title is right and that you can 'print a gun'.

You could always make a gun, all you needed was a lathe, some tooling, a
hacksaw a file, some steel stock and a bunch of patience.

Printing a gun is just another way to get to the goal, possibly an easier one
but one with its own unique challenges.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm>

The differentiating factor for a gun from printed ABS is not that you've made
it at home, but that it is very hard to detect the gun itself (you'd have a
hard time not using metal at all, especially for the parts mentioned above and
then there is the ammo).

You can bet that if you get caught with one trying to board an airplane that
there will be very serious repercussions, you won't be able to say you left it
in your carry-on luggage by accident. Well, you can say that but good luck to
get anybody to believe you.

So, printing a gun is not the same as buying a gun, it is the same as making a
fire-arm at home through conventional means.

On another note, the design of a working firearm, especially from unproven
materials, is not something you muck around with unless you know your
materials science. A gun that explodes when fired could have some pretty nasty
effects on you and bystanders.

~~~
ctdonath
The article focuses on a particular gun, the AR15. After much wrangling,
settled law dictates that the "lower receiver" _is_ the gun; all the other
parts are incidental. Sure, the lower receiver alone is little more than a big
paperweight, but it's the unchanging core to which all other variable
components are attached to form something functional. And no, you can't just
"whittle it from wood" etc., it's a pretty serious chunk of milled steel
(there exists a "plastic" version, but that ain't generic plastic).

Yes, some jurisdictions aside you can make one AR15 lower receiver on your own
without any paperwork, fees, checks, or permission. Understanding is that
nobody going thru that much effort is going to waste it by doing something
stupid (if there's criminal intent there are many far easier ways to acquire
one).

The issue here is: where's the line on making one? You can make one yourself
legally, but if you hire someone else to knowingly make it they'll need an
expensive big-hassle manufacturer's license. The key is "knowingly", as up
until recently it was pretty obvious to the machinist what he was being asked
to do. Now, with "printing", you just upload the pattern for what is otherwise
just another odd-shaped chunk of metal, a computer & machine crank one out,
and the result gets sent back to you with a minimum of comprehension by any
humans involved - are _you_ "making" it? or is the printing house "making" it
and, in effect, selling it to you? The legal line has been blurred.

~~~
0x12
Anybody that wishes to pretend that the legal line has been blurred will find
themselves sooner or later in an excellent position to try to prove that to a
very unrelenting judge.

If the legal fiction is that the lower receiver of that gun is the gun, then
legally that didn't change so the method of manufacturing it is not relevant.

Hiring someone to produce it while obfuscating the intent is not gray, it puts
you in the docket. The printing house is acting on your explicit instruction,
and if they don't review the orders (hard to do, after all, you can't know
each and every prohibited item) then you are still on the hook.

Trained machinist or 3D printer operator the change is only in the material of
the produced item.

As for not being able to whittle that part from wood, there are many kinds of
wood that are _much_ stronger than the ABS wire that a 3D printer uses.

And if it can't be made out of those kinds of wood then it certainly can't be
made out of plastic printed ABS (if you expect the gun to function).

~~~
anelson
While I agree it would be unwise to test this legal question in court, I think
it is fair to say this is a murky legal question. The BATFE, the federal law
enforcement agency responsible for enforcing US laws regarding firearms
manufacture, have a history of arbitrary rulemaking in defiance of simple
logic (for instance, in one famous rulemaking BATFE ruled that a shoe string
would meet the legal definition of 'machine gun' if used to repeatedly fire a
gun with a single pull of the trigger [1]).

Given this environment of legal uncertainty, it's not at all clear that BATFE
would not pursue the 3D printer operator who produced the receiver. In this
case, charges against the 3D printer operator would likely be unlawful
manufacture of a firearm, possibly in addition to charges related to
interstate transfer of a firearm. Given the creativity of some US attorneys,
perhaps a conspiracy case would be made alleging the buyer of the printed part
'conspired' with the printer operator.

I would also suggest a lower receiver could probably be made from materials
weaker than you might imagine. The lower receiver does not bear any gas
pressures from the firing of the cartridge, though the holes for the roll pins
which hold the hammer and trigger in place would probably start to 'egg' after
a round or two. In any case, the legal question has nothing to do with how
reliable the resulting firearm is; only whether it meets certain vague and
broadly-interpreted legal definitions.

[1] [http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-
machi...](http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/)

~~~
mc32
Why wouldn't a 3D print operator have people/entity sign a legal document
stating that placed order would not violate any federal laws and anything
which resulted in violating federal law regulation would boomerang back to the
entity placing the order?

~~~
kragen
You can't become innocent of a crime by someone signing a contract with you
saying you're innocent of the crime.

------
presidentender
There's a concept called the 80% receiver, which is a freely-transferable hunk
of metal that's almost but not quite a receiver. You can order a receiver flat
for an AK-type rifle, a parts kit, and assemble a complete rifle for cheaper
than you'd buy one. You need a means to heat treat the metal, and probably a
drill press. That's not a much greater barrier to entry than the 3d printer
for the lower receiver on an AR.

So really, this doesn't _change anything._ This brings preexisting truths more
prominently to the public discussion.

~~~
gonzo
an AK? who wants that PoS?

You can get an AR-15 lower blank for $100 or less.

You can buy the tooling to allow you to use a drill press to make the receiver
M-16 ready for not much more.

<http://www.cncguns.com/tooling.html>

No heat-treating necessary (it's just aluminum). Yes, you'll need a drill
press.

~~~
presidentender
I'm an FAL guy. AKs are just cheaper to build than almost anything else. The
AR/AK debate is a very silly holy war. Come join on on /r/guns.

~~~
gonzo
This must explain why ARs, not AKs or FALs took the stand at Camp Perry the
past several years.

~~~
presidentender
The AR platform's direct impingement operating principle has a far greater
accuracy potential than the AK or FAL's gas piston (or a piston AR, for that
matter). DI is probably the best operating principle for building a supremely
accurate semi-automatic rifle. That's why the M110 system is an AR, not just
an updated M14.

However, for the next generation of infantry rifles, you're seeing nothing but
gas piston systems. Modern piston accuracy is "good enough" for the engagement
distances that modern infantry units encounter. Modern DI rifles are "reliable
enough" for the field conditions that trained, equipped first-world militaries
operate under.

However, I'm not a trained, equipped first-world military. I'm some random
dude who'd rather spend more time shooting and less time cleaning. A gas
piston rifle is much more tolerant of bad hygiene and maintenance than a DI
rifle, and my FAL is still more accurate than I am from field positions.

An AK isn't - I shoot better than even the nice Bulgarian AK-74s or converted
Saigas. Most FALs are 3-4 MOA guns, and I'm about a 2-3 MOA shooter, depending
on the day. But without an extremely steady rest like you see at Camp Perry,
my FAL is more than accurate enough for my shooting.

------
adolph
Is growing the same as buying? I wonder if the precedent of Gonzales v Raich
would apply to printing firearms (if it were ever feasible).

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich>

 _...a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the
Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress
may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where
states approve its use for medicinal purposes._

~~~
monochromatic
There will certainly be people to make that argument. But people already make
guns, and it's not illegal (at least under federal law; some states probably
do criminalize it). _Selling_ a gun you've made is a problem, but making one
for personal use? NBD.

~~~
fleitz
IANAL, but mere possession of an automatic weapon is prohibited, is it not?

I thought the idea behind the receiver for the AR15 is that with a slightly
different receiver that the AR15 becomes an automatic weapon (aka. an M16)? Or
are we talking about the semi-auto (AR15) receiver?

~~~
philwelch
The receiver doesn't make any difference at all whether it's full auto. Or
rather, the legally designated lower receiver _contains_ the firing mechanism
(which can be full or semi auto), but the receiver itself is just a piece of
steel and you can change out the actual mechanism.

~~~
commandar
Not entirely accurate. The ATF actually specifically requires that semi-auto
weapons are _not_ readily convertible to fully automatic by way of a simple
parts swap.

A standard, semi-automatic AR-15 will _not_ accept a full-auto M16 trigger
group; the M16 trigger group requires an extra hole to be milled in the
receiver which isn't present on semi-auto receivers.

------
jarrett
Legally, I'd think this would be the same as if a gunsmith were to make a
lower receiver for himself. If that activity would be regulated in a given
jurisdiction, is there any reason printing the receiver wouldn't be?

This article doesn't really get into the question of printing then
subsequently transferring a receiver to another person. Were that to occur, I
assume that the person who printed it would be regulated in exactly the same
manner as any other gun manufacturer.

~~~
hvs
I'm pretty sure the gov't would look at printing the receiver as precisely the
same as milling one on a CNC machine.

Transferring it is going to be treated the same as any other firearm transfer
in the U.S. as well.

~~~
commandar
>Transferring it is going to be treated the same as any other firearm transfer
in the U.S. as well.

i.e., expect the BATFE to get rather upset with you if you manufacture a
receiver intending to transfer it to someone else without being a licensed
firearms manufacturer.

Manufacturing a firearm for personal use is generally good to go as long as
you stay within the bounds of NFA, etc regulations.

------
signalsignal
The article is wrong. A license isn't required to own an AR-15 except in a few
states like California.

~~~
hvs
The article says "license to buy" not "license to own." I know that in
Minnesota you need a Permit to Purchase from your local PD or a Permit to
Carry from your local Sheriff in order to purchase an AR-15 (or a handgun).

~~~
anelson
The majority of US states have no such requirement. In VA I can purchase a gun
from another VA resident with no paperwork; I can purchase from a dealer by
filling out a one page form with name, DOB, address, and place of birth.

~~~
hvs
You can do that for long rifles in MN as well (although I think you forgot the
NICS check required for all gun purchases regardless of state). It's just hand
guns and "black" rifles that require the permit. VA obviously has a more
enlightened view than MN (IMO).

------
Jun8
"The fact that we are now able to manufacture usable weapon parts is an
important step..."

It's not clear to me if a rifle part printed from plastic at home is usable.

I wonder how the manufacturing of these thing are regulated normally: Can you
have a professional place make 2-3 of these for you without telling them what
it is?

~~~
hvs
The law is pretty clear cut in the U.S. about gun manufacturing. If you want
to build the lower receiver of an AR-15, go ahead, but if you plan on selling
it you need either a Type 7 or Type 10 Federal Firearms License. The rest of
the AR-15 is just parts. If a "professional" makes them for you, whether or
not he knows what they are, he better have a license or he could be committing
a felony.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
But in the hypothetical future where 3D printers are ubiquitous, if you sell a
script to build the lower receiver, then does that count as selling one?

Reminds me of the case where Phil Zimmerman noticed that exporting crypto was
a form of arms export, but exporting books was protected by the First
Amendment. So he published the source code to PGP and shipped it.

~~~
anelson
IANAL but I know my way around US federal firearms law. I am not aware of any
law or rulemaking which would classify, for example, CAD files describing a
lower receiver as an item subject to firearms regulations. There exist books
sold openly and without restriction detailing how one can make improvised
firearms, some of which if constructed would be illegal for possession by
American civilians. I'm sure this information has by now made it to the
Internet as well. Up to this point, such materials are treated as speech and
thus strongly protected by the First Amendment. I see no reason why 3D printer
instruction files would be treated any differently, under current law.

It's not hard to imagine a Congresscritter raising a fuss over concerns of
"children printing machine guns" or some such nonsense, and thereby
introducing legislation to regulate such materials, including executable
scripts for 3D printing machines. It's even possible to imagine such
legislation passing the House and Senate. Our current president would likely
sign any such legislation he was given. However, it is very difficult to
imagine the legislation surviving a Supreme Court challenge on First Amendment
grounds.

Then again, I said the same thing about the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance
Reform Act, and SCOTUS upheld that 5-4, so what do I know.

~~~
sneak
> However, it is very difficult to imagine the legislation surviving a Supreme
> Court challenge on First Amendment grounds.

Next month is the TEN YEAR anniversary of the USA PATRIOT act, the legislation
that abolished the fourth amendment. Checks and balances only work when they,
well, balance.

Unfortunately that isn't the case any longer.

------
showerst
Mirror at the Washington Post since original seems to be down:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/is-
printin...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/is-printing-a-
gun-the-same-as-buying-a-gun/2011/09/20/gIQAPoqeiK_story.html)

------
TheFuture
Nevermind the dozen easier ways to get a gun without a background check...
When will people realize bad people that want a gun, figure out how to get
one. All the ridiculous waiting periods and background checks just hassle law
abiding citizens.

------
epicviking
[http://www.amazon.com/Machine-Pistol-Workshop-Defense-
Resist...](http://www.amazon.com/Machine-Pistol-Workshop-Defense-
Resistance/dp/0873648234/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316576203&sr=1-7)

[http://www.amazon.com/Bazooka-How-Build-Your-
Own/dp/08736473...](http://www.amazon.com/Bazooka-How-Build-Your-
Own/dp/0873647386/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316576286&sr=1-1)

Guns really are not that complicated. I wish I had the time and the cojones to
actually try to make one of these.

~~~
sneak
All the balls in the world doesn't make jail fun.

------
danssig
This seems like over-analysis to me. Why is said villain going to be printing
a gun? To rob money, right? And what is he going to do with this stolen money?
Buy a car? Why doesn't he just print _that_ instead?

I think when the day arrives that we can just print out whatever we can get a
blueprint to the world will be so drastically changed that our current biggest
concerns won't even be relevant anymore.

------
dholowiski
We haven't even figured out if downloading a movie is 'stealing' yet, and now
we have to figure out if printing gun parts is illegal too?

------
Killah911
Actual Laws aside, I get goosebumps thinking that this isn't completely sci-
fi. Just because you can't print the whole weapon now doesn't mean you can't
do it in 15 years or so. I can't wait till home depot is selling you "models"
of nuts and bolts rather than actual nuts and bolts!

~~~
stewartbutler
It is actually quite possible to print the entire gun, if you wanted to use a
metal Selective Laser Sintering machine. They are just cost prohibitive
($500,000+).

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_laser_sintering>

------
tedjdziuba
You can buy AK-47 receiver "flats", and press them into the correct shape to
build a receiver.

[http://armsofamerica.com/ak47762flatwithrailstrunnionholes19...](http://armsofamerica.com/ak47762flatwithrailstrunnionholes1995.aspx)

You do not need a license or a permit, just access to machine tools. Oh, and
$22 for the flat.

~~~
kryptomaniac
There's lots of parts you can buy that get you in a world of hurt if you make
them. Say, trigger kits to turn a AR-15 in to select fire...

