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.

 Seaward wrote:

In all but two states, you do not need a "firearms license" to purchase a gun. In the overwhelming majority of states, you do not need a license of any sort to purchase non-selective fire handguns and long arms.

If thats true the sheer idiocy of it is breathtaking. I would never feel safe living in the US.

However, the Brady Bill does require a background check when purchasing from a licensed dealer.

So, lessons to learn here:

1) When you're trying to create a controversial product you should buy your manufacturing equipment, not lease it.

2) When the inevitable idiot earns a Darwin award trying to build a homemade gun we can finally fix that little "it's legal to make your own" problem and restrict the manufacturing of dangerous objects to people who actually know how to do it right.

Palindrome wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

In all but two states, you do not need a "firearms license" to purchase a gun. In the overwhelming majority of states, you do not need a license of any sort to purchase non-selective fire handguns and long arms.

If thats true the sheer idiocy of it is breathtaking. I would never feel safe living in the US.

Then I would advise not to come here. We have something called weather and mosquitoes here too. And Bears. Oh my.

 Frazzled wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

In all but two states, you do not need a "firearms license" to purchase a gun. In the overwhelming majority of states, you do not need a license of any sort to purchase non-selective fire handguns and long arms.

If thats true the sheer idiocy of it is breathtaking. I would never feel safe living in the US.

Then I would advise not to come here. We have something called weather and mosquitoes here too. And Bears. Oh my.

Do they carry firearms as well?

Palindrome wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

In all but two states, you do not need a "firearms license" to purchase a gun. In the overwhelming majority of states, you do not need a license of any sort to purchase non-selective fire handguns and long arms.

If thats true the sheer idiocy of it is breathtaking. I would never feel safe living in the US.

Then I would advise not to come here. We have something called weather and mosquitoes here too. And Bears. Oh my.

Do they carry firearms as well?

They're the reason we carry firearms. If you'd ever seen a cornored bobcat you'd carry a weapon too.

Palindrome wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

In all but two states, you do not need a "firearms license" to purchase a gun. In the overwhelming majority of states, you do not need a license of any sort to purchase non-selective fire handguns and long arms.

If thats true the sheer idiocy of it is breathtaking. I would never feel safe living in the US.

Then I would advise not to come here. We have something called weather and mosquitoes here too. And Bears. Oh my.

Do they carry firearms as well?

Just the bears.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I understand this is complicated for you.

Not really, I've just never heard the term "firearms license" used by anyone who knows what they're talking about in my life.

But bear with me.
Since you seem so insistent upon the "firearms license" idea, read the definition that I posted earlier. It can also be referred to as a "permit".
That list of states that I listed require permits to purchase handguns.

I'm aware. That doesn't change the validity of my statement - the fact that I missed Iowa and Hawaii does, however, so that's all but four states where you can walk into Wal-mart and buy a gun without a permit - or as I guess we're calling it now, a "firearms license" of any sort.

But that's not the point. Those "licenses" are permits to purchase, which this company is not doing. They are not buying firearms, thus the argument that they need an argument to buy firearms is more than a little invalid. You could make the argument that they might need an FFL, but they're not selling firearms, either. The closest analogue would be selling a book telling someone how to build a gun, which is covered by no licensing regulations of any sort currently.

And since you so cutely tried to insinuate that I am "anti-gun", as the pro-gun lobby is so wont to do, I think I should make it abundantly clear that is not the case.
I'm pro-gun, but anti-conspiracy theorist nutjobs getting their hands on guns.

And this entire thing is a way for the second to happen. Seriously. Just look at the website for this venture.

I agree with you. But it should be fought on the correct grounds, using the correct regulations and laws, rather than whatever happens to spring to mind when issuing a press release.

Impossible. There's no way a plastic firing pin could be manufactured with a 3D printer to survive the tolerances that would be required of it. Forget about the barrel, which would be burned up and bubbling before the bullet left it. I also doubt a plastic slide would work. If it did, Glock would be using them.

This is silly. I understand that it would set a precedent though.

I'm more worried about people making lightning links and other automatic crap in their garages with equipment they can buy from harbor freight

My guess is that the Barrel and pin arn't printed plastic and either need to be printed on a metal printer or purchased seperately.

"It will be the next frontier in IP [Intellectual Property] theft when you are able to manufacture a Rolex watch, Gucci handbags, Nike sneakers," he said.

 Grey Templar wrote:
My guess is that the Barrel and pin arn't printed plastic and either need to be printed on a metal printer or purchased seperately.

You never know, someone could decide to print it in plastic. It probably won't kill them, right?

And of course even if they can print it in metal, can it hold up to the pressure stress of actually firing? Can it be completely free of cracks that would eventually cause it to explode? Can it be made with tight enough tolerances that it doesn't explode? These are the questions qualified professionals are supposed to answer, and why allowing the average person to make their own gun is a really stupid idea.

Wait, can the pin even be fired with just plastic componants? A plastic spring doesn't sound like it would work.

It seems like some parts would need to be metal at least.

 Grey Templar wrote:
If I were the Wikiweapons guys I'd sue. As its not illegal to manufacture weapons at home I would say the Printer Company has no right to withdraw the printer on legal grounds. Unless I've missed something.

I would guess that Statasys rented the equipment to the Wiki Weapon group, meaning that Stratasys still owns the printer and the Wiki Weapon group can only use it in accordance with the rental agreement; which probably included some kind of generic "proper use" or "legal use" clause.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Wait, can the pin even be fired with just plastic componants? A plastic spring doesn't sound like it would work.

It would. The trick is getting the right kind of plastic. You could probably make a plastic barrel as well, but again finding the right kind would be the issue.

Making an entirely plastic gun isn't hard, theoretically, its just more expensive than the alternative. You also have to deal with making plastic ammunition, which would be a bear.

 Grey Templar wrote:
IIRC, oddly enough, while many guns are illegal, owning the parts of those guns is not. The parts that make a semi-auto weapon into a select fire automatic weapon are not illegal. A gun with the part on it is, but the part is perfectly legal to own.

So I could have an AR-15, print off the parts needed to make it full auto, and as long as the weapon is disassembled its all legal.


People that pass gun control laws are sooo stupuid

It's ironic that you're calling other people stupid when you are so categorically wrong. To the ATF, there is absolutely no legal difference between owning the select fire parts, like the sear etc; and owning a fully built select fire weapon. Google the phrase "Once a machine gun, always a machine gun".

If you have an AR-15, and you print off the parts needed to make it full auto, unless you have a Class 7 or 10 FFL, you're going to go to jail.

I did say I could be wrong. But its still true that most people passing restrictive gun laws are very dumb in how they write them. They leave obvious loopholes or just plain forget things that anyone who actually knew the laws would see.

 Grey Templar wrote:
I did say I could be wrong. But its still true that most people passing restrictive gun laws are very dumb in how they write them. They leave obvious loopholes or just plain forget things that anyone who actually knew the laws would see.

Of course that doesn't matter much, because most people don't know the law.

Honestly, this was very little more than an attention grab from the get go, for some of the reasons pointed out and then some. CURRENTLY You can not have a 3D printer just spit out a gun. Ok.

...But you can probably get one to make a part negative for aluminum or zinc alloy casting...(This will take care of the vast majority of any parts you require up till .45 ACP level or so. Yes, people have made cast aluminum barrels, no, they did not explode. Yes, they were ridiculously thick and heavy for the cartridge fired. Yes, they will make something die just as dead.)
...And you can probably get one to spit out jigs and guides for keyway and hole placement....
...And guides to make bending jigs for bending magazines and small parts (Triggers, sight guards, etc...)

I don't entirely disagree with the IDEA, or any kick to the face of gun control in general....but from all I can see they really just wanted to troll.

 Ouze wrote:

It's ironic that you're calling other people stupid when you are so categorically wrong. To the ATF, there is absolutely no legal difference between owning the select fire parts, like the sear etc; and owning a fully built select fire weapon. Google the phrase "Once a machine gun, always a machine gun".

Somewhat correct.

If you can pick up a pre-ban auto sear, you can drop it into a post-ban AR15 and have a perfectly legal weapon.

As it's been explained to me, owning the individual components is entirely legal, but you can't own both the gun and the FA components, even if you don't assemble them. That might refer to drop-in sears only though. You can buy a FA trigger group anywhere, but it's useless without a FA bolt carrier and a couple other parts.

I read a little guide on this sort of thing. The long and short of it is that anything that makes your gun fire more than one bullet at a time is illegal. ARs are a good example, because people have a general idea how it works, and they know what it is, but as far as guns go, they're fairly difficult to convert to full auto, and are prohibitively expensive and bulky for criminals to bother with.

I wish I could get my hands on a legal select fire .22 of some sort. That would be loads of fun, and it would be cheap too!

Yes, so as long as you arn't caught with all the parts together it perfectly legal.

And IIRC parts don't have ID numbers so there arn't any records to proove that one person has specific parts.

Mostly right. ANY situation where you own all the components to make something naughty (SBR, silencer, full auto) without a reason a judge and jury will buy...."Constructive possession!"

....This is why you will go to jail if you own a STEN parts kit and a piece of steel tubing the right diameter with no explanation for the tubing, or if you have a short barreled AR-15 "pistol" upper half, but only rifle lower halves to put it on.

 Grey Templar wrote:
People that pass gun control laws are sooo stupuid

Gun laws in the US are plagued by the problem that people trying to pass gun laws no nothing about guns, and people trying to oppose them know a lot about guns, but are insane.

Case in point, the Bullet Button

Most of the federal laws make total sense. State laws get kind of silly sometimes, but nothing is as bad as california. I don't know why anyone who has even a slight interest in guns would want to live there. But, it's still better than most of the rest of the world.

Yeah, we have some crazy silly laws here.

Not sure if this is true, but I heard that while .50 cals are illegal, .51 cals(some Chinese weapon) are perfectly legal here in CA. I don't know if I believe this one but its crazy enough to have some plausability(and I have better things to do then dig up some obscure law)

 Seaward wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

It's ironic that you're calling other people stupid when you are so categorically wrong. To the ATF, there is absolutely no legal difference between owning the select fire parts, like the sear etc; and owning a fully built select fire weapon. Google the phrase "Once a machine gun, always a machine gun".

Somewhat correct.

If you can pick up a pre-ban auto sear, you can drop it into a post-ban AR15 and have a perfectly legal weapon.

Presuming no holes are required to be drilled, sure. Otherwise it's manufacturing.

Plastic receivers or that is carbon receivers are a thing already. I know there's one guy unrelated to this program who's printed his own AR-15 lower receiver and stress tested it.

Wouldn't the first bullet fired kinda destroy the gun? I mean it's only a resin right? How strong is it?

 Surtur wrote:
Wouldn't the first bullet fired kinda destroy the gun? I mean it's only a resin right? How strong is it?

A bushmaster Carbon 15 lower receiver.

And here's an article on AR--15.com user HaveBlue's printed receiver: http://hackaday.com/2012/07/26/3d-printed-ar-15-lower-works/tha

On the AR-15 system in particular there really isn't that much stress on the lower receiver. Me personally plastic/carbon receivers make me nervous. But I'm old fashioned like that. You will however notice that there aren't plastic upper receivers for the AR-15 system because that's where the pressure really is and that's where you need the metal to handle said pressure.


....I just re-read that, sorry guys I'm exhausted but I mostly got my point across, maybe?

 Surtur wrote:
Wouldn't the first bullet fired kinda destroy the gun? I mean it's only a resin right? How strong is it?

Depending on what you need it for, one shot would be adequate, such as in a court setting. I don't think you could get a bullet through a metal detector though, can you?