Working Gun made with 3D Printer

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

So according to the video its built with "layer upon layer of plastic" and uses a .22 rimfire round. At least the Europol agent was pretty blunt about criminals getting their hands on weapons "more easily offline".

For me the jury is out on this. Was a firearm made? Yes. However only in a relatively small caliber, with what appears less than stellar materials, with only one round fired, there was nothing indicating how or if the firearm could be reloaded, nothing to show its accuracy and it was pretty bulky.

**Dreadclaw69**

Silly question but how difficult are these to reload? The links in this thread only show single shots being fired.

**Dreadclaw69**

Yeah, that's what my take was on it too. So in its current guise its hardly a viable weapon for many nefarious purposes

**Dreadclaw69**

azazel the cat wrote:
Yeah, that's why this needs to be regulated -harshly- while Pandora's Box is still just a proof of concept; before it's opened.

Sadly, I'm not certain how to do that without significantly violating the 1st & 4th amendments.

So, given how well piracy has been dealt with on the internet, how do you propose that this is "regulated -harshly"?

**Dreadclaw69**

Frazzled wrote:
Agreed. As I said, its difficult to kill an idea. Unless you have a committee of course. That kills ideas faster than a neutron bomb...

Its the equivalent of kryptonite for ideas.

I could see these type of guns in their current state as likely ending up decided by the Supreme Court to be a type of weapon that a well regulated militia does not use/need, in a similar manner to sawn-off shotguns (name of the case escapes me now)

**Dreadclaw69**

azazel the cat wrote:
Solutions? Of the top of my head? Regulate the plastics used in 3D printer reservoirs so that the stress of the chamber cannot withstand a bullet being fired. Imagine if every commercially-available 3D printing cartridge was only capable of printing in something akin to Finecast.

I think that would solve the problem quite effectively, as nobody would be crazy enough to willing fire a gun made of Finecast.

Nobody is suggesting we "un-learn" something, that much is obvious. I don't know why so many are pretending as if that's what I was saying (I assume it's strawman arguing out of pure habit at this point for some). However, the materials used to create the problem can potentially be regulated in the same way that meth could have never even gained its traction due to regulating its source materials (a pharmaceutical lobbyist hindered this with a loophole and singlehandedly lost the war on meth, btw).

I for one am not suggesting that we un-learn something.
What are the impacts on this regulation on making other, non-firearm related parts? Such as making replacement parts for lawnmowers, cars etc. which would require a stronger material to bear the strains of its use.

**Dreadclaw69**

Squigsquasher wrote:
Well, gak.

I'm staying out of the US.

Excellent plan. Except for the tiny flaw that the internet isn't just available in the US

**Dreadclaw69**

skyfi wrote:
.38 caliber is what their pistol is packing IIRC

If you go to the video in the OP and watch at 00.55 the range being used specifies ".22 RIMFIRE ONLY" in nice big red letters.

**Dreadclaw69**

kronk wrote:
I prefer 38Ds, but there you go.

And they aren't likely to go off in your hand while you play with them, unlike other things

**Dreadclaw69**

skyfi wrote:
"The printed gun seems limited, for now, to certain calibers of ammunition. After the handgun round, Wilson switched out the Liberator’s barrel for a higher-charge 5.7×28 rifle cartridge. He and John retreated to a safe distance, and John pulled his yellow string again. This time the gun exploded, sending shards of white ABS plastic flying into the weeds and bringing the Liberator’s first field trial to an abrupt end." (from same article)

I'm not so sure that whomever reported this actually knows what they are talking about. The 5.7x28mm is the SS190 round and it was developed by FN for the P90 Personal Defence Weapon and Five-Seven pistol, one of its main advantages over a 9mm round (bar the armour piercing) is that it has 40% less recoil. It is not a "rifle cartridge", it was intended to be a replacement for the 9x19mm round

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_5.7%C3%9728mm

**Dreadclaw69**

azazel the cat wrote:
I guess that would require a distinction between large-scale industrial printers and home-use commercial printers, then, wouldn't it?

Not trolling but will this have an impact? The gun produced seemed to be made on a relatively small machine (especially for it being early in its technological life), which is likely to get smaller over time. As well as that if I'm using a home 3D printer to machine parts for a lawnmower, such as a blade, which would require a strong source material then the parts for the firearm seem smaller than the blade itself.

**Dreadclaw69**

azazel the cat wrote:
The point I was trying to get at is that if you regulate the quality of 3D-printing materials (the plastics and resin) to be of "weaker" quality for the home-use market (think of osmething on par with Finecast), and only allow larger industrial production to use "heavier"-grade 3D-printing materials (btw, I'm using quote because I'm not certain if I'm using the correct terminology; perhaps someone with experience making their own molded minis can correct me semantically if need be) then the problem of seeing bullet-firing printed guns will be far, far less than what it otherwise would be. For example, ephedrine is available to large pharmaceutical companies, but if you're not a purchasing agent for Pfizer, no industrial chemical plant will sell you a barrel of it. This is one of the ways that meth was almost regulated out -most cold medicines were prohibited from selling it over the counter (but this was thwarted by a loophole wherein blister packs could still contain it).

That's how the US government almost prevented meth from being a major drug problem, and I see a parallel here.

And my point was that the material being used to make innocuous objects that are required to bear a great deal of stress to operate safely (lawnmower blades, car parts etc.) will be the same material that people can re-purpose to manufacture firearms.

I notice how you also said that "the US government almost prevented" meth becoming a problem, but obviously haven't.

Melissia wrote:
That really depends on how much it's refined.

3D printing can be VERY precise and, when done right, can actually be better than normal manufacturing.

I'll probably be lambasted for it, but I think anyone who wants to legally use a 3d printer to make guns should go get a gun manufacturing license first.

I have no issue with anything being properly produced by fully licensed individuals with the correct skill set

Melissia wrote:
Ah, found it. This is why plastic 3d-printed guns are illegal, at the moment:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/139315094/Undetectable-Firearms-Act-of-1988

tl;dr: it's illegal for anybody to "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer or receive" a firearm that can't be detected once its grips, stocks and magazines are removed.

Now, if the manufacturing process used metal instead of plastic (which would be a much more expensive 3d printer to be sure), that'd be different. Or if you include enough metal in the gun to have it detectable by a metal detector despite having certain parts removed.

Thank you for the link

**Dreadclaw69**

azazel the cat wrote:
And your freedom to print lawnmower parts is one that would be gladly sacrificed if it will help prevent you from printing a handgun, particularly since it is a freedom that you have never known, nor considered a reasonable tradeoff.

Sort of undermines the point of having 3D printers in the home then if you cannot replicate parts easily, especially those that cannot be obtained. Especially parts for cars etc. that are no longer easy to obtain.

azazel the cat wrote:
I think at this juncture, I must ask: do you honestly not see a problem with anyone being able to obtain an untraceable firearm at the push of a button?

I don't know why you're asking me that question because I have not been advocating for the ability to print guns at home. As should be apparent from these quotes;

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Yeah, that's what my take was on it too. So in its current guise its hardly a viable weapon for many nefarious purposes

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I could see these type of guns in their current state as likely ending up decided by the Supreme Court to be a type of weapon that a well regulated militia does not use/need, in a similar manner to sawn-off shotguns (name of the case escapes me now)

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Melissia wrote:
I'll probably be lambasted for it, but I think anyone who wants to legally use a 3d printer to make guns should go get a gun manufacturing license first.

I have no issue with anything being properly produced by fully licensed individuals with the correct skill set

Asking you to substantiate your desire to see materials "regulated-heavily" with something approaching a workable solution does not mean that I favour guns being printed.

**Dreadclaw69**

azazel the cat wrote:
Then did you miss the part about where, in response to a question of "how, exactly" I said I was just spitballing an idea, based off of the US's could-have-worked-and-almost-did example with regulating the supplies to make meth?

I don't have a perfect solution to the problem, and if you are assuming that I'm positing my solution as perfect then that is your own mistaken appeal to my authority, and I apologize if I come across as such.

I did see your response, several pages after I asked you and you recycled ideas with massive holes in them, or that had previously failed before. I wasn't looking for a perfect solution because in the real world they rarely exist. I was hoping for a workable one though.

**Dreadclaw69**

azazel the cat wrote:
You should point out those "holes", or else not claim it.

Like the banning of an innocuous substance which would undermine the idea of home 3D printers, or following a legislative path that has already proven ineffective (a la crystal meth), or how heavy regulation has not worked against piracy. Those points which I've made several times, are they the ones you'd like me to repeat again?

**Dreadclaw69**

azazel the cat wrote:
Holeeeee gak. If this works, then the US government really, really needs to get ahead of this and outlaw it quick with penalties for the blueprint distribution as well. If the blueprint distritubors have no penalty, then it'll create an effectively unlimited supply of untraceable handguns.

Sorry I missed this earlier, but can I ask why the US in particular has to get ahead of this? Its not as though the technology and knowledge are only accessible in the United States, lots of other countries might want to pay attention to this also.

**Dreadclaw69**

azazel the cat wrote:
Sorry, I must've honestly missed some of these. However, #2 I definitely addressed, and I see that you replied without lookig up what I was talking about, so I'll clarify for you.

1. As I said, the banning of an innocuous substance such as a high-density printable plastic or resin is a tradeoff that I'm willing to make. I recognize not everyone will agree, but I also said I don't have any perfect solutions.

As someone with more knowledge replied concerning this I believe it is appropriate to quote him;

SOFDC wrote:
The point I was trying to get at is that if you regulate the quality of 3D-printing materials (the plastics and resin) to be of "weaker" quality for the home-use market (think of osmething on par with Finecast), and only allow larger industrial production to use "heavier"-grade 3D-printing materials (btw, I'm using quote because I'm not certain if I'm using the correct terminology; perhaps someone with experience making their own molded minis can correct me semantically if need be) then the problem of seeing bullet-firing printed guns will be far, far less than what it otherwise would be.

Uh...No?

Let me explain: I can't make anything that withstands firing pressure pressure with my 3D printer. Hm, darn. BRB, 3D printing out a negative of a barrel and bolt, followed by me, a propane burner, and a months worth of aluminum i was saving for recycle are going to go sand casting in the garage.

This is to say nothing of someone modding the machine itself to work with better plastics (Assuming they can't work with them by default...a bad assumption in a lot of cases, and in the rest..Frankly, if you can figure out a 3d printer, you're probably mentally capable of learning how to mod the stupid thing.) ....now how would you get these plastics? Well, chances are, if someone is making something out of material X, you can probably buy an unregulated item made from X, and melt the SOB down.

See: AR-15 lower made from HDPE cutting boards.

I'm sorry, but no amount of legal finger wiggling is going to make this go away at this point, short of shutting down the internet, and even then I'm pretty sure the information will get out there.

Also the point of 3D printers is to allow you to print things like lawnmower blades, replacement parts etc. What you're suggesting will be the death knell for the emerging technology, so in effect you're killing off an existing idea

azazel the cat wrote:
2. The legislative path (a la crystal meth) actually would have been effective; that is why I brought it up. It failed because a massive exception was made in the legislation: when ephedrine was banned in over-the-counter medications, there was an exception made wherein medicine sold in blister packs could still contain ephedrine. Now, had the legislation been complete, most researchers and experts will tell you that meth would have gone the way of the quaalude. But unfortunately all that happened was the biker buying a hundred bottles of cough syrup at 2am simply changed his shopping list to look for two hundred packs of the same medication in gel-cap form. Had the legislation been complete, the meth industry would have never gained the traction due to its scarecity.

And you don't think that history will repeat itself as the materials being used for nefarious purposes in 3D printers also have perfectly lawful functions too?

azazel the cat wrote:
3. Anti-piracy legislation fails because it is impossible to stop knowledge or kill an idea; but think about how many pirated CDs there would be if all writeable CDs were banned. I'm not seeking to stop the flow of information (because I'm not that crazy) but I do think one maybe-viable solution would be to regulate the quality of the printing medium such that it is not as heavy-duty as would be required for successful firearms creation.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but this sounds like a repitition of your first point. Also killing writeable CDs would not have been a solution because people still have hard drives, USB cable and other storage and playback devices that could do the same job as a CD-R/W, but much better. So a digital storage medium would have been killed off for little practical benefit.

azazel the cat wrote:
But I do think that it's a situation wherein there is no perfect solution, but anything would be better than nothing.

As I said before I'm not looking for a perfect solution. Only one that stands a chance of working. Hamstringing emerging technology because a minority of people will use it for ill does not seem like a proportionate response. It would be similar to turning off the internet, or severely restricting it, because of some of the activities that take place on it.

azazel the cat wrote:
Perhaps this is lazy reasoning on my part, but I assume that most countries with any modicum of existing gun control would be on top of this.

The US does have gun control, along with many other countries. It just seemed strange that you singled out the US in particular when we are talking about an issue that is unlikely to respect borders

Melissia wrote:
Cracking down on anyone that attempts to produce plastic-only "undetectable" guns with highly publicized harsh penalties, is probably the first step that they'd take. And not likely the only one.

Well, the legislation is already there so does that mean that the people featured in the BBC's video will now be charged?

Frazzled wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
Good, so we shouldn't need any new regulation as they're already illegal.

Twice over. As noted you have to have a special license to manufacture firearms, much less illegal undetectable ones.

That's my opinion too. If it is already unlawful to produce I do not see why we need further laws. They just need to be enforced.

**Dreadclaw69**

skyfi wrote:
I know its common sense to think that a sporting-firearm would be a rifle or shotgun, but trying to find the legal basis in all of this. If anyone else looking into it, help a fella out

I'm no expert in US law but this may be useful - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

The 1968 Gun Control Act added a "sporting purpose" test which barred imports of military surplus rifles (a goal of many domestic gun makers) and a "points system" for imported handguns which barred from importation handguns based on penalizing features (short barrels, small caliber, short overall length or height, non-adjustable sights, etc.) believed to define the Saturday night special class of handgun. . .

The GCA created what is commonly known as the "sporting purposes" standard for all imported firearms, declaring that they must "be generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." As interpreted by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, "sporting purposes" includes only hunting and organized competitive target shooting, but does not include "plinking" or "practical shooting" (despite the latter being a form of organized competitive target shooting) nor does it allow for collection for historical or design interest.[4] Hence, foreign made assault rifles and machine guns such as the AK-47, the FN FAL or the Heckler & Koch MP5 could no longer be imported into the United States for civilian ownership (however, semi-automatic models of the same weapons were permitted until the definition of "sporting purpose" was further tightened in 1989). The fact that domestic production and sale of weapons identical to those prohibited from import remains legal, without any need to conform to the "sporting purposes" standard, has also led to criticism that the GCA is more a matter of economic protectionism for the benefit of U.S. firearms industry than a genuine effort to curtail gun violence.

**Dreadclaw69**

skyfi wrote:
so to me, that says... That one could claim their 3d printed gun was produced for the purpose of small game hunting (not that its sensible, but loophole lookin-for here).... right?

It seems the sporting purposes only has to do with regards to intent, and the physical features they specifically list off? which it seems the only one that stands out to me would be the over all size of the gun, the detachable pistol grip (though I dont think legally the pistol grip on the liberator being a main component of the frame would fall under "pistol grip" or whatever?)

I'm no expert here. I own a 3d printer which I've yet to assemble so I'm very keen to see how all of this plays out so that I can operate under the letter of the law.

I'm not sure that the firearm produced would fall under a hunting purpose, or a competitive shooting purpose. The firearm had no iron sights, and its not clear if it has rifling etc. which may bump it into the prohibited plinking, or design interest classes.

Also you may want to read Melissa's excellent post at the top of Page 4;

Melissia wrote:
Ah, found it. This is why plastic 3d-printed guns are illegal, at the moment:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/139315094/Undetectable-Firearms-Act-of-1988

tl;dr: it's illegal for anybody to "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer or receive" a firearm that can't be detected once its grips, stocks and magazines are removed.

Now, if the manufacturing process used metal instead of plastic (which would be a much more expensive 3d printer to be sure), that'd be different. Or if you include enough metal in the gun to have it detectable by a metal detector despite having certain parts removed.

So in its current guise I personally would not risk manufacturing a firearm with a 3D printer

**Dreadclaw69**

skyfi wrote:
I believe it does have rifling. I think they described it as rather poor quality rifling leading to poor accuracy, but rifling none the less?

"it's illegal for anybody to "manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer or receive" a firearm that can't be detected once its grips, stocks and magazines are removed."

the liberator is designed with a 6 oz piece of metal in the stock (epoxied in so irremovable)... so how is this applicable? (i understand it would be illegal to produce one without the steel inside of it. the steel chunk inside of it is what makes it compliant with the aforementioned law I believe.)

The rifling, and the quality thereof, may be the deciding factor in whether or not the firearm is legal. If the rifling is of poor quality then its hard to argue that it has a sports or competitive shooting application. Also without iron sights, or the ability to mount optics this becomes even more of a hurdle.
I didn't know that about the liberator, I was basing my observations off the video and the pictures concerning the firearm produced from the OP which appears to be almost entirely plastic.

**Dreadclaw69**

skyfi wrote:
the liberator is what is pictured. & you're pretty much right, it's almost entirely plastic, aside from the firing pin, and the 6 oz chunk of steel insert for compliance with non detectable weapon act.

a rail where sights could be added on, is very possible. I don't necessarily understand the requirement that sights be "iron" though.

I don't think it necessarily has to be a sporting firearm for an individual to legally produce one without a serial #. I suppose that is the answer I have been trying to find. I'm found it explicitly stated its OK to produce a sporting firearm without a serial # for personal use, and I have found it explicitly stated its OK to produce a "firearm" for your own personal use ....

But this still does not get around the issue of the rifling and the accuracy of the firearm in question, which may have a direct bearing as to whether it is prohibited or not.

skyfi wrote:
hell i just wiki'd it and think I answered it for myself.

"The law also required that all newly-manufactured firearms produced by licensed manufacturers in the United States and imported into the United States bear a serial number. Firearms manufactured prior to the Gun Control Act and firearms manufactured by non-FFLs remain exempt from the serial number requirement. Defacement or removal of the serial number (if present) is a felony offense."

more or less if you are an unlicensed individual manufacturing a firearm for your own use, no legal requirement for a serial number. If you put one on it, and remove it, it becomes felonious. Or that is how I'm seeing it?

If you are an unlicensed individual manufacturing firearms are you not already falling foul of the law? Genuine question because I don't know
Only firearms manufactured prior to 1968 (year of the Gun Control Act) are exempt from the serial number requirement. It appears that anything lawfully produced after this date must have a serial number. So on reading that it would appear that a firearm produced using a 3D printer would need a serial number as it was manufactured before the commencement of the 1968 Act

**Dreadclaw69**

skyfi wrote:
Seems to me, the law only requires licensed firearm manufacturers to employ a serial number. Not unlicensed firearm manufacturers. They are explicitly exempt.

I could have mis-read it. What way does it work for unlicensed firearm manufacturers in the US? How do they get set up, are there limits on their activities and what they can produce etc.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

skyfi wrote:
which lends the Q...

Could you RENT your machine to a 3rd party and let them "manufacture" their own gun by hitting "print" on YOUR machine which has been contractually rented?

That is one way route I think people will take in an attempt to get non-serial # containing guns into the hands of 3rd parties for profit. (if they really wanted to get all shady about stuff and operate under the law)

Not that its really economical, sensible, or anything, but seems like a possibly legal loophole?

That may depend on prior knowledge and reasonable suspicion of whether or not you were enabling someone to break the law. You could potentially be charged with assisting in the commission of a criminal act.

**Dreadclaw69**

Thanks for the link Frazz

**Dreadclaw69**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I swear I explained this briefly earlier. It is legal in the United States for you to manufacture firearms for your own personal use, these 3D printer guns included, passing muster with the undetectable fireams act and the NFA are all that are required. This is for sure, tested and certified, ATF approved Federal law. However the SECOND you do something that resembles being in business, for example selling a weapon, you need to have a manufacturing permit or face the legal dropkick of the ATF. They /love/ cases like that. They usually even get to play mall ninja, dress up in masks and kick you door in!

So these pistols do have to follow some other NFA regulations, for example we know the barrels, no matter how gakky they are, are rifled, if they were smooth bores they'd be classified as an SBS (Short Barreled Shotgun)*

Now it is a federal felony to provide weapons to people who cannot legally posses firearms, I believe this includes the means to acquire firearms as well, so lending your 3D printer to a felon, who prints a gun and goes and robs a 7-11 for it, would most likely result in you being put up on charges if DOJ actually started prosecuting crimes like that again.

*Black powder smooth bore muskets are an exemption to this classification, and most firearms laws in the United States, you can even have them mailed to your door!

As to the Interstate Commerce Stuff that's going to court at some point, four or five states have "Weapons made and sold in state aren't the feds bidness" laws, (AZ, Montana, Wyoming, and Kansas off the top of my head) but those laws haven't been court tested yet.

Thank you very much for the clarification

skyfi wrote:
thanks kalish.

lets say you rent your 3d printer unknowingly to a felon, or person unauthorized to receive a firearm or means to acquire?

Ignorance of the law is no protection of it, so I'd say you're boned... but if a previously non-criminal rented the machine, printed a gun, and made himself a criminal with the gun he now produced....What legal position is the owner of the 3d printer who rented it to him in? You didn't give a gun, or means to a gun, to a criminal. You had no prior knowledge of his plan of action etc? You gave means to a gun or access to a non-criminal at the time?

My advice - consult a qualified attorney in your State. It seems like you're looking for hard and fast legal advice on ever changing scenarios, and there are few people qualified to give that on this site.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
or in my mom's case you could run over the same person, twice in one afternoon...

Deliberate or accidental?

**Dreadclaw69**

Fair enough. From past experience I've usually found that anyone who asks that many questions about a dubious enterprise is strongly contemplating it/has done it already and wants a way to cover their rear.

**Dreadclaw69**

Frazzled wrote:

Per Mom: accident tee hee!
Per Dad: intentional crazy red head. (guess who she ran over)

Gotta watch out for those red heads, fierce temper

skyfi wrote:
How is firearms production a dubious enterprise?

I know I laid out a worst-case scenario for my example and it was done for theoretical purposes. I don't typically lend out expensive equipment of mine, and consequently don't think I would lend my 3d printer out based on all the hubb-bub about this.

If an individual did let them borrow their 3d printer, this "borrower (or renter)" did something stupid with it, I was curious about what y'all speculate the ramifications for the unwitting 3d printer owner would be? (or how messy it would play out legally)

Its not, nor did I claim it was. Constantly asking what would happen if you were to allow felons and/or criminals to use a 3D printer to manufacture a firearm, and what possible legal defenses you may have available, may look dubious to an outside observer. Especially when the scenarios get more specific.

**Dreadclaw69**

skyfi wrote:
I'm not "constantly" asking. I think its a valid topic of discussion regarding 3d printers/3d printing guns specifically and legal ramifications... It's really not the only thing I've contributed to the dialogue, but I do feel like you are trying to paint my honest inquiry in matters of law (which im no expert and hence deferring to the smarter-than-me-fellas at dakka for the purpose of our OT discussion).... Which I truly don't understand?

I just don't see how an interest in the subject of this thread (and it's legal ramifications for producers/consumers and how it will all work out) is an indication of dubious activity unless one wildly speculates...

Could you just not reckon, like I've stated that I own a 3d printer, and was curious of the opinions of others on a hypothetical situation? That maybe I don't want to risk letting someone borrow my printer to build themselves a computer case, or widget or whatever in the off chance they have lied to me and use it for nefarious purposes? I would like to be equipped with the knowledge to protect myself, my capital, and a means of explaining why I won't lend my machine out in the event I'm asked about it and don't want to come off simply like "because it's mine." etc

I however have pointed out that there seems to be a potential for owners of printers to lend/rent them out to people who could then produce a firearm with no serial # for themselves... withstanding they didn't rent it to individuals whom wouldn't qualify to receive a firearm/access to one in the first place.... I didn't say it was the way the truth an the light, or even a good idea. I just said it was a possibility that everyone will have to seemingly deal with, especially people who own a 3d printer. what safeguards could be implemented where you could viably make a biz of renting your printer out while at the same time ensuring you are not arming felons or would be terrorists? There seems to be a place in the market legally for this, currently, although not economically feasible I would argue unless one had a ton of local customers. Again not that i'm saying its a good idea, but I'm trying to figure out what prevents someone from doing this? I'm not so dumb I'm going to risk my biscuit on this sort of thing, but I'm REALLY interested to see what comes of it being a bit of a gun nut, and owning a 3d printer. Just seems logical I would find it interesting!

It got me thinking about what others have said regarding CNC etc... you can easily make metal guns very easily with good machinery like that. So what do people who own CNC machines do? Are they liable for every dumb who rents a machine from them (never heard of someone renting out an entire CNC machine except to a biz) and produces a gun and does something stupid? I doubt it. I doubt unless it was proven that they were privy to the plans of the people who rented the machinery... That same line of thinking, if you own a CNC shop. What if a customer of yours pulled a fast one on you and had you build him some random gizmos over a period of time that you didn't know assembled into a full auto tommy gun, but did? Would the CNC shop owner be at risk? or would the customer have sole liability if something happened as he lied/mis-represented plans to CNC owner who unwittingly built gun?

Could we extend the same logic to walmart, they sold a guy a broom, a nail, and a rubberband, should liability be extended to them if he combines those objects and a shotgun shell and kills someone?

I'm just really curious about how all that interacts and what not!

Don't worry, I'm not saying that you're up to anything nefarious. Its just from my own personal experience when someone starts with what-ifs that get gradually more specific its almost always been more than just intellectual curiosity. They are usually trying to find a way to cover themselves while doing, or because they've done, something shady.

Once again, if you're that curious your best bet may be to consult a suitably qualified attorney who can properly advise you. That way should the worst happen, and I hope it doesn't, and you end up in Court because of someone else's actions a judge will probably have more sympathy for your claims of acting in good faith if you consulted an attorney, instead of people on a website dedicated to miniature war gaming

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22464360

Downloads for 3D-printed Liberator gun reach 100,000

The blueprint used to produce a 3D-printed plastic gun has been downloaded about 100,000 times since going online earlier this week, according to Forbes.

Defense Distributed told the news site it was surprised by the amount of interest its Liberator gun had generated.

Earlier in the week, the company demonstrated the firearm being fired

But even before any more guns come off the DIY printing presses, there are moves afoot to ban it.

Metal detectors
Californian senator Leland Yee said he wanted a law passed to stop the manufacture of 3D-printed guns.

"I plan to introduce legislation that will ensure public safety and stop the manufacturing of guns that are invisible to metal detectors and that can be easily made without a background check," he said in a statement.

According to Defense Distributed, most of the 100,000 downloads have been in the US, followed by Spain, Brazil, Germany and the UK.

The blueprint has also been uploaded to file-sharing site the Pirate Bay, where it has become the most popular file in the site's 3D-printing category.

Firing pin
It took Defense Distributed eight months to produce the firearm, which was assembled from separate components produced on an $8,000 (£5,000) 3D printer bought from auction site eBay.

While downloading the blueprints may not be illegal, owning a firearm is, according to the UK's Metropolitan Police.

"To actually manufacture any type of firearm in the UK, you have to be a registered firearms dealer (RFD)," it said in a statement.

"Therefore, unless you are an RFD, it would most definitely be an offence to make a gun using the blueprints. It may be legal for an RFD to manufacture a gun this way, as long as they had the necessary authorities."

One of the biggest headaches for law enforcers is the fact the gun is made from plastic - with only the firing pin made from metal.

New York congressmen Steve Israel and Chuck Schumer have sponsored legislation aimed at adding a 3D-printing provision to the US Undetectable Firearms Act, which requires all guns to be detectable.

**Dreadclaw69**

BaronIveagh wrote:
For those poo pooing this device: while Jihadin is absolutely correct about it's functionality in a sustained firefight, it works great for target practice and as an easily concealed weapon if you use slightly different ingredients, meaning put in plastic and ceramic parts instead of steel. Without the steel in it, it does not set off mad detectors.

Have you shot with it? I'm curious as to its accuracy and whether there is any rifling on it as that isn't something that that report in the opening post covers.

I think that the topic of the detectability of the firearm, and the legal ramifications, was addressed earlier in the thread too.

**Dreadclaw69**

Thank you for the clarification, those were details that the article and video were both short on.