Yes I did write both of those. The first was in response to the OP’s saying you can’t sell it. And no it does not conflict with what I said in the second quote. My point was that some people will sell certain things illegally, but the range of what IS legal due to loopholes and lack of FEDERAL law gives us no teeth to go after those people. Context.
And you definitely wrote:
Peddle that tired old straw man argument to someone else. It isn’t about people who “want” to commit a crime with or without a gun. It’s about ease of access and where those guns come from. How many crimes committed with guns are done with stolen guns? Depends on who you believe. In almost every state there is no requirement to report a stolen gun. So all guns can become “stolen” at the most convenient time. Or in the states where no proof of ANY is required for a private gun sale you just say “I sold it”. And you didn’t break the law, because there is no law requiring you to ask the person their name, or if they are from out of state, or if they are a felon. Laws are system to punish people who are caught breaking them. Will the person buying the gun lie? Sure. Since there is no law requiring them to submit to a background check in a private sale. The solution? Make all private sales happen through a licensed gun dealer. The more people you involve who DON’T want to get caught breaking the law, the more chance you actually get some deterrence out of the law. The more people who WOULD have been innocent, instead going to jail because you closed the loopholes, the fewer people there are to facilitate the crime. Making the Commercial Driver’s License a national program worked. Having a database of all car VINs across the country works. Gun laws can work, as long as they are crafted to work and not to fail as most have been. That’s part of the NRA’s mission, to pervert any legislation to make it useless.
I actually agree what constitutes a “dealer” is nebulous. IIRC in the 90s they started to discourage “kitchen table” dealers. People who had an FFL but no store front. There are people who make a hobby out of buying and flipping guns. Some people like to try out a ton of different things, and thus have a lot of turn over. I am not sure where the ATF is on that matter now. I know you can get an FFL with no storefront. But there is no hard rule on the number bought or so making one a dealer or not.
As for your “plan”, it may not work out great for you. At least if you buy from other FFLs. I know people who buy multiples of certain types of guns as part of collection/speculation. I know a couple people who got a call from the ATF because they bought several guns, including duplicates over the course of a year. In both cases they were able to show they still had said guns, and no, they weren’t reselling them. YMMV.
Manufacturer is pretty well defined. I don’t think the “hobbiest” are contributing to the problem. As the snark in the original post pointed out, it is way easier to get a gun through the system now, making your own isn’t really worth the time, money, and effort. Contrary to popular belief, the street level criminal doesn’t make a ton of money and getting a GF/BF, spouse, cousin, friend to straw purchase or buy on the black market or steal one is much easier and cheaper.
Neat story about the thread and such. You think when China or whomever were to copy it they would obsess about getting the threads identical, or just cut something that works, even if it isn’t compatible directly with the real thing?
Forgotten Weapons has an interesting video of Chinese copies of various handguns from the 20s and 30s. They were well made, but by machinists who didn’t know what all the parts they were copying were for, in some cases replicating the look, but not the function - such as with adjustable sights.
There are A LOT of makers making great composite firearms besides Glock now. But again, only parts of those guns are plastic, and none of them are made out of the material that 3D printers use. Indeed other than the Liberator, the AR15 attempt never worked well, as the material just isn’t made for the stresses - at least not at the standard measurements. 3D printed guns are not practical in most plastics.
Great point about the barrel preasures. That really is the most important area. Proper head space and the bolt mating with the barrel in the receiver are the most important areas. Indeed head space is usually what makes an old rifle become unsafe over time with use. They have gauges for just this sort of thing.
People aren’t going to be making their own barrels. It requires a different process than just milling. They may make the “firearm” part but nearly everyone is going to buy after market parts to finish, including a barrel.
Even if they don’t you can get away with some fairly sloppy tolerances and have it work fine. The two metal example that the DD company has put out are the 1911 and AR15 and both of those can get pretty sloppy with affecting performance too much. It can make it more reliable. In the civilian sector you will find ARs with much tighter tolerances than in the military. But again, they are going to be using the new mini-CNC machines - not something that prints in 3D out of plastic.
The fact they tried to limit this under ITAR is laughable as you have people making 1911s with basic machine tools in Pakistan and other areas. A design over 100 years old is not some big defense secret.
I think the bigger concern is folks being able to print out the “illegal” parts that prohibit a legally purchased firearm from being a more lethal weapon. 3D printed guns, though most likely impractical, could still cause havoc even with one or two shots in the right situation.
Again, that would need to be out of metal. I assume you mean things for like full auto conversion. That is a possibility with something that alters metal, but considering it is a possibility now and it rarely if ever is an issue I don’t think we need to panic.
And as I said before, two lengths of pipe and a nail and you get a slam fire shot gun which is way more practical and lethal than any 3D printed plastic gun.
This is about the 1st Amendment to disseminate information. Should the Anarchist Cookbook be banned because people could misuse it? What about information that could be used by black hat hackers? Etc etc. Even if they changed the laws on the legality of making your own or changed it so you had to register it or what ever, the information alone shouldn’t be illegal.
No, what’s fucked up is the worship of guns by certain people in this country. I ran out of fucks to give for them a long time ago. But you go on with your bad self.
Maybe look at WHAT either side seeks to regulate. Like how possession of a gun in Texas is a right but possession of a dildo is still technically illegal. But that might deflate your attempt at a pithy one-liner.
That’s because their primary mission is to funnel money from Russia into the US in order to disrupt our political system. Cheap somewhat-functional plastic guns are consistent with that mission.
The NRA did release a statement, which reads in part "“Federal law passed in 1988, crafted with the NRA’s support, makes it unlawful to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive an undetectable firearm.”
So you can talk about making guns that cannot be detected by metal detectors or other means. But you cannot manufacture one without ending up in the big house.
But plans and designs for all sorts of guns have been in the public domain for decades. And designs for lots of other things that would be illegal to actually make.
Well, since District of Columbia vs Heller determined that firearms do not need to be associated with maintaining a well regulated militia, I don’t see what Trump et al is now getting all bothered about.
You could use a variation on the lost wax casting method in order to use a 3D printed positive (in PLA) to cast your gun parts… OR use a ~100€ piece of crap milling machine/lathe to make your own out of a steel block.
Or if you’re rich, you can already print a gun in metal, there’s a colt 1911 like that, and it already fired way more than 500 rounds without problems.
( I think there was also a test for plastic guns using “reinforced” bullets, where the bullets’ casing replace part of the firing chamber, making the gun far less likely to crack and/or explode ( https://mikescustomweaponry.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/314-atlas/ ))
Always good for perspective to see that the Republicans still don’t have a monopoly on mind-boggling stupidity.
Distributing instructions on how to make weapons (which is all this file is) is protected speech covered by the First Amendment, and has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Actually making something with those instructions relates to the is a different matter, and could be illegal depending on what you make.
Instructions on how to make guns have been widely available in the US since at least the glory days of Loompanics Unlimited in the '70s, and if you wanted to make one that wouldn’t blow up in your hand, you’d use an end mill, which is much simpler than a 3D printer. The hysteria about this is beyond ridiculous, considering that there have been much better ways of making your own guns forever, and the easiest way to get a gun is just to go down to Walmart and buy one.
I don’t know if those exist, but publishing them is certainly protected speech. Publishing instructions for weapons and bombs has already been extensively litigated, and always found in favor of free speech.
Novichok I suspect would be harder to find instructions for, since the manufacturing techniques are Russian state secrets, but if you got a hold of them, you could publish them in the US.
Ah, now as an engineer and materials scientist, this is the point I start getting interested. You could probably make something the right shape for the barrel but it would not resist the bursting stresses. You could wind glass or carbon fibre around the barrel and stick it down. Even if that broke, there would be a lot more work to fracture, so the bullet will leave before it comes apart and the pressure drops. Then, if you want a tough non-chipping material for the inside surface, something like porcelain (china clay) would be better. Wind the fibre tight, and the inside of the barrel will be in compression when not firing.
If you have a shockwave travelling out through the barrel, you can probably take most of the sting out of that with a weak surface layer that spalls off harmlessly taking the radial momentum with it.
I’m not going to try this. I hate things that go bang. But it is an interesting problem.
Disclaimer: If your porcelain willow-pattern Glock explodes and takes your eye out, don’t come crying to me.
I can think of easier ways to reproduce that device. Probably build it out of steel tube from the hardware store and get a better result. The ready availability of ammunition may be part of the problem. The gun is just a tube to fire a bullet through.
