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.

If you really want with this.....is to make a anti personnel frag....the lethal SoB that doesn't frag but copper wire......I've seen one insurgent get caught in the kill zone of that. The "wires" are capable if going through the body armor but not the plate....I do believe the grenade were shelved halfway through 2010 due to the nature of survivability.

 Jihadin wrote:
If you really want with this.....is to make a anti personnel frag....the lethal SoB that doesn't frag but copper wire......I've seen one insurgent get caught in the kill zone of that. The "wires" are capable if going through the body armor but not the plate....I do believe the grenade were shelved halfway through 2010 due to the nature of survivability.

Oh... that's nasty dude...

o.O

But, yreally don't need a 3d printer for that eh?

 SOFDC wrote:
It might stop people from trying it, sure. Theoretically. It worked very well with prohibition, MJ, and meth.

This argument is stupid. Guns are not equivalent to drugs. One is a single-use recreational item, the other is a deadly, dangerous, and highly efficient tool for killing people.

Attempting to treat them as the same thing shows to me that you don't give guns the proper amount of respect they deserve. Guns need to be regulated. Thankfully, no extra laws need to be added to regulate plastic-only guns and prevent undetectable guns from becoming too common, since they are already illegal. It simply needs greater enforcement now that the means to do so is easier than before.

One last reply, so as to make my stance clear, then I'm going to stop posting in this thread.

I'm all for the development of new technologies. Hell, 3D printing has always interested me, simply due to being able to make anything I would need in home. To say "You can't create the blueprints to make a gun for a 3D Printer" is also wrong, in my book.

My problem comes from A) Hosting it on the internet, and B) the potential for the 3D printer to become a house hold item (let's say, less than $2,000 per printer).

Printing technology (I'mma just shorten it to PrinTech) being used to make guns is by far the greatest cement the 2nd Amendment could ever have. You want to take our guns? We'll just print more off, because all it would take is one of these machines to arm an entire militia (The guns WILL become more complex later on.) should our government try anything funky. I find this good, as it truly makes it to where the government is futile in telling us we can't have them.

My problem is that when PrinTech (Will be copywriting that.....) becomes a household item, ANYONE could get ahold of it, even people who shouldn't due to mental illness or simple hormonal imbalance. How many people often say "I feel like I need to shoot someone..." after a hard day at work? If PrinTech gets to be an affordable commodity, anyone will be able to, very easily. Put the specs into the Printer, go to bed, wake up, spend an hour to put it together (Or shorter, as most people who handle guns a lot can do it in three minutes or so), go shoot some fools.

So, to shorten it:

Technological advance? Good.
Assurance of Rights never being violated? Good.
Mass Production value? Good.
Household commodity? Bad.

As for the argument of buying shells, how many shootings have had the issue of getting ammo? The correct answer is none of them, for obvious reasons.

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

I agree. We just need to ensure the regulation that we already have is enforced.

 Melissia wrote:

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

I agree. We just need to ensure the regulation that we already have is enforced.

Which basically sums up MOST if not ALL of our current firearms regulation issues in the United States.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

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

I agree. We just need to ensure the regulation that we already have is enforced.

Which basically sums up MOST if not ALL of our current firearms regulation issues in the United States.

It's a pity the guns rights activists in the USA are too corrupt to actually act on the idea.

Instead of reasonable, intelligent laws that are properly enforced, we get people saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" on one side and, thus, the end result is "ERMAGERD, ASSAULT WEPINZ BAN!" on the other because the first side is not putting forth any honest attempts.

I''m not worried about this in the state or UK or EU for that matter. I'm sure we're going to nip this before this tech gers really going. WHat concerns me though...is a financer in the ME or else where thinking creative ways to create some mayhems with undetectable weapons.

 Jihadin wrote:
I''m not worried about this in the state or UK or EU for that matter. I'm sure we're going to nip this before this tech gers really going. WHat concerns me though...is a financer in the ME or else where thinking creative ways to create some mayhems with undetectable weapons.

How are we going to nip it?

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.

I'm not paid the big books for that. I'm paid the big bucks for other things.

 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.

So, similar to either the drug war or the high-profile example-making suits against internet pirates.

Neither work, leaving aside the fact that it's going to be extremely difficult to figure out who's actually making these things once they inevitably come down drastically in cost and improve drastically in quality.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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?

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.

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.

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. I can't say for sure; I don't have all the answers to this.
Yet
But I do think that it's a situation wherein there is no perfect solution, but anything would be better than nothing.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

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.

 Melissia wrote:

 SOFDC wrote:
It might stop people from trying it, sure. Theoretically. It worked very well with prohibition, MJ, and meth.

This argument is stupid. Guns are not equivalent to drugs. One is a single-use recreational item, the other is a deadly, dangerous, and highly efficient tool for killing people.

Attempting to treat them as the same thing shows to me that you don't give guns the proper amount of respect they deserve. Guns need to be regulated. Thankfully, no extra laws need to be added to regulate plastic-only guns and prevent undetectable guns from becoming too common, since they are already illegal. It simply needs greater enforcement now that the means to do so is easier than before.

Anybody that can print out a 3D gun would be able to print out an army of 3D lawyers to protect him. That's my worry

Everybody thought atom bombs would destroy the world, and yet here we are decades later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
I''m not worried about this in the state or UK or EU for that matter. I'm sure we're going to nip this before this tech gers really going. WHat concerns me though...is a financer in the ME or else where thinking creative ways to create some mayhems with undetectable weapons.

They're doing that right now in the ME with detectable weapons!

 Jihadin wrote:
I've a silly simple idea....program the 3D printer not accept prints or shapes of the nature of a working "hand weapon". Prints already online....no need to go through the research on creating one. Someone did it for free and posted it....

That's not a simple idea. Not only do you have to make every 3D printer incapable of receiving firmware updates and able to recognise what is and is not a gun, you also have to make it incapable of producing the components for a 3D printer that lacks these flaws.

One is a single-use recreational item, the other is a deadly, dangerous, and highly efficient tool for killing people.

Correct and totally irrelevant to the point. Attempting to fight a supply and demand issue by focusing almost solely on the "supply" half of it does not work very well. Yet we keep trying it, because it'll work someday! Surely!

Though do I think it's going to be NEARLY the problem people are making it out to be? Heck no. There has been no scenario presented so far that could not be carried out with equivalent ease in a world where 3d printing never existed. None. And how much of a problem has this situation been? Well....it hasn't really been one.

The staff at defense distributed are the finest trolls the internet has ever seen. He set out to stir the pot, and 3d printers are the spoon they decided to use. That's really about it.

 Melissia wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

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

I agree. We just need to ensure the regulation that we already have is enforced.

Which basically sums up MOST if not ALL of our current firearms regulation issues in the United States.

It's a pity the guns rights activists in the USA are too corrupt to actually act on the idea.

Instead of reasonable, intelligent laws that are properly enforced, we get people saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" on one side and, thus, the end result is "ERMAGERD, ASSAULT WEPINZ BAN!" on the other because the first side is not putting forth any honest attempts.

Corrupt right wing politicians are not the reason that existing gun laws are not enforced. Where do you come up with this stuff?

A lack of enforcement is to blame for the lack of enforcement, plain and simple. Thousands of people fail the background check (i.e., lie on it) to purchase a firearm every year, and less than a hundred are followed up upon annually. Some of these checks are failed due to ignorance, some due to outright attempted deception. In any event, investigating people who try to buy guns, and who are denied, equates to enforcement of existing common sense laws and it never happens. Instead liberals have singled out a class of firearm that is used in less than 5% of all firearms-related crimes. Their reasoning ranges from the ignorance (i.e., "it looks scary! Machine gun machine gun!"), to outright attempts at tyranny. I don't trust anyone who wants to remove my ability to protect myself.


The truth is that guns separate free men from slaves. DefCad / Defense Distributed is putting the guns back in the hands of those who need them. Guns aren't just for government, kids.

Presumably if ammunition is made of metal any gun of any worth for fighting would be detectable by the ammo.

Or is there a proposal to 3D print poison darts with curare in them?

 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.

 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.

Fraz, grey Templar and I all agree. Amazing.

Its llike when the stars align, opening the gate to free the dark gods...or just Tuesday.

 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.

"Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future."" (bolded parts for those who don't read)



Really not sure how you guys think it's illegal to produce a firearm without a serial #. Maybe I'm completely wrong on the matter here but, my snooping for info didn't take 15 seconds to figure it out for myself.. (and taking a second, third, and nth look at has me putting doubts in my mind but I could just be overthinking it.)

It's (seemingly to me at this point) perfectly legal under US law to produce a firearm without a serial number (which someone is getting referred to as trace-ability it seems in this thread). You just can't transfer the weapon unless it meets the required identification parameters.



So you guys need to pick your poison. Either say you think we need new laws to curtail the innovation of 3d guns (counter intuitive IMHO , see zip guns, traditional weapon design blueprints available online.).... or say that the laws on the books already cover this stuff... (which they do).... You can legally print a "untraceable" (lol) 3d plastic gun for your own use but cannot transfer it under current law. If you did that would be a criminal activity and already punishable by the justice system.

if you think the justice system is leaving too big of a loophole here, thats fine and dandy and you're all entitled to that. I personally feel like the law already addresses our concerns over the issue of 3d guns... and really this should be more of a "oh neat look what things are becoming realistic..." instead of worrying so much about what someone MAY POSSIBLY ONE DAY THINK ABOUT POSSIBLY COMMENCING TO TAKE ACTION ABOUT... We all know things will be used nefariously... We know steak knives will be used nefariously too. We don't spitball and speculate about the societal implications of the existence of steak knifes though.... and you guys act like this stuff is such a huge improvement on something as easy to make as a zip gun..

To me....

The potential gains far outweigh any potential threat to us regarding this stuff. IMHO.



my 2c.

-sky

(edit: I realize the quotation says "sporting-type firearm" but then goes on to define "firearm" which the 3d gun seems to meet all the parameters of. I know that full auto, short barreled etc are prohibited and this may fall under "short barreled" but I don't think it does. Still trying to find "the law" that makes "the liberator" produced for individual use illegal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
we have this..

"For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.
The GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), defines the term “firearm” to include the following:
… (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive: (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm."

So by that the pistol should be readily and legally produce able for personal use.... but the other quote is what gets me, they specifically say that sporting firearms are not required to have a serial # for personal use. It doesn't say that all firearms produced.

"Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future."

Does this bit just not apply to people manufacutring non-sporting type firearms for their own use?

Not trying to conflate the issue, really has me scratching my head.

 SOFDC wrote:

One is a single-use recreational item, the other is a deadly, dangerous, and highly efficient tool for killing people.

Correct and totally irrelevant

Entirely relevant.

Just because you aren't mature enough to treat guns as the dangerous weapons that they are doesn't mean that no one else should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Corrupt right wing politicians are not the reason that existing gun laws are not enforced. Where do you come up with this stuff?

From the fact that groups like the NRA keep pushing to add nonsensical restrictions to law enforcement regarding gun control.

Many times they even succeed.

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 wrote:

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.

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.

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 wrote:

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

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 point is that this technology just shows how easy it is to make guns already, even without a 3d printer.

guns are not hard to make, any idiot with even the most basic of tools you can buy at any home dept can make a functioning "zip" gun already, and frankly to a higher durability then the extruded plastic.

where it really gets crazy, is when you leave the realm of "any idiot can do it" and enter the realm of "what can a normal person do"

take this fully functional AK-47 that was made from a shovel, elbow grease, and vodka induced energy.

http://www.firearmstalk.com/entries/The-Two-Dollar-Shovel-AK.html

its the year 2013 people, this stuff has been around for 100's of years and isnt going anywhere.

if this gun scares you, its because you dont know anything about how crooks already get/manufacture guns.

to think that criminal organizations, that often make more money then small countries, cannot buy a lathe or CNC machine (the first real 3d printer, except for you know, METAL) and load in the blueprints for a gun onto that CNC is just silly.

I have visited several medical companies that 3D print in metal. Printing bullets can be as simple as using a multi material printing head. Though the tolerances would need to be pretty good to print the case, powder and bullet (i don't know guns so names of technical parts may be wrong). Probably easiet to use traditional bullet manufacturing methods.