Print 3d guns

IvIax

Banned
Joined
Jun 24, 2013
Messages
810
Likes
126
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
When the 3d printing technology is available for guns, will I need a license to print whatever I want? Will that drive gun manufactory out of business?
 
Last edited:
a. it is available
b. doubt it
c. Intellectual Property Law is going to get curiouser and curiouser until we find a better way to handle it
d. Why would you assume you need a license? Perhaps you should work to ensure that your rights are not stripped away instead of asking? You need a license presently to manufacture for commercial purposes (sale), but private property is private.
 
When the 3d printing technology is available for guns, will I need a license to print whatever I want? Will that drive gun manufactory out of business?

You can already 3D print lower receivers, as well as complete rudimentary guns (see the Liberator, not to be confused with the WWII era gun).

Currently, on the Federal level you do not need a license to make guns for your own personal use. Manufacturing with intent to sell/distribute requires an FFL, regardless of manufacturing process. Of course, the law could change in the future, but that's the way it is now.

Currently 3D printed guns are not that great compared to ones made by an actual manufacturer. It is possible that in the future, the technology will advance to the point where 3D printed guns are as good as or better than traditionally manufactured ones, but I doubt it will happen any time soon.
 
a. it is available
b. doubt it
c. Intellectual Property Law is going to get curiouser and curiouser until we find a better way to handle it
d. Why would you assume you need a license? Perhaps you should work to ensure that your rights are not stripped away instead of asking? You need a license presently to manufacture for commercial purposes (sale), but private property is private.

All my assumption is based on current MA gun regulation. I would love to print without a license
 
You can already 3D print lower receivers, as well as complete rudimentary guns (see the Liberator, not to be confused with the WWII era gun).

Currently, on the Federal level you do not need a license to make guns for your own personal use. Manufacturing with intent to sell/distribute requires an FFL, regardless of manufacturing process. Of course, the law could change in the future, but that's the way it is now.

Currently 3D printed guns are not that great compared to ones made by an actual manufacturer. It is possible that in the future, the technology will advance to the point where 3D printed guns are as good as or better than traditionally manufactured ones, but I doubt it will happen any time soon.

Maybe the 3D blue print designer will be the best career in the future. People will download designs like we download app from store.
 
No different than turning a chunk of Aluminum in (aka 80% lower) to an AR lower. same requirements to build and manufacture the firearm.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe the 3D blue print designer will be the best career in the future. People will download designs like we download app from store.

No way to sell a digital blueprint/ 3D build. Once one person has it, the world has it. there is no way to stop piracy unless you have extreme DRM on the file.
 
No different than turning a chunk of Aluminum in (aka 80% lower) to an AR lower. same requirements to build and manufacture the firearm.

- - - Updated - - -



No way to sell a digital blueprint/ 3D build. Once one person has it, the world has it. there is no way to stop piracy unless you have extreme DRM on the file.

Someone has to figure out a way to earn money other wise there will be no motivation to push 3d printing tech any further though
 
All my assumption is based on current MA gun regulation. I would love to print without a license
In most states, there is nothing stopping you from printing or manufacturing for personal use. The reason for this is the nature of private property being stringently Constitutionally protected. Federal and most state governments were not willing to test how poorly our Courts were performing at any given moment by regulating truly private behaviour.

There are some wonky Federal (and likely some state) laws on undetectable firearms that I honestly don't bother following too closely because I'm not trying to build anything that way. I know there are some hard limits on FFL07's, but I have no idea if those laws apply to individuals.

At a minimum MA requires an FA10 when you make a firearm.

I am not a lawyer of course, so all I can say is that there is no state-level license for manufacturing. There is a "gunsmithing" license and of course a Federal license for firearms manufacture (FFL07 or 10), but there again, those licenses apply to commercial activity and sale of things that are made or modified.

- - - Updated - - -

Someone has to figure out a way to earn money other wise there will be no motivation to push 3d printing tech any further though
3D will move forward independent of firearms. They will not determine its success or failure one way or another.

They may weigh heavily on Big Brother style regulations... [sad2]
 
Maybe a gun smith license...just feel like all the gun control regulations will go away if 3D printing became reliable
 
No way to sell a digital blueprint/ 3D build. Once one person has it, the world has it. there is no way to stop piracy unless you have extreme DRM on the file.
Scanning will only get better rending this even more problematic - hence my comment on "we need a better way to handle Intellectual Property", but I have no idea what that is other than "don't be a douche", but then that's the foundation of civilization.
 
Maybe a gun smith license...just feel like all the gun control regulations will go away if 3D printing became reliable
No, far from it. They will and are being used to justify ever more invasive regulation of gun ownership.

If we are to retain the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution, we will need to push despite 3D technology. If anything it is a rhetorical liability until people finally grow up and realize that crime is a people problem, not a gardening tool problem.
 
In most states, there is nothing stopping you from printing or manufacturing for personal use. The reason for this is the nature of private property being stringently Constitutionally protected. Federal and most state governments were not willing to test how poorly our Courts were performing at any given moment by regulating truly private behaviour.

There are some wonky Federal (and likely some state) laws on undetectable firearms that I honestly don't bother following too closely because I'm not trying to build anything that way. I know there are some hard limits on FFL07's, but I have no idea if those laws apply to individuals.

At a minimum MA requires an FA10 when you make a firearm.

I am not a lawyer of course, so all I can say is that there is no state-level license for manufacturing. There is a "gunsmithing" license and of course a Federal license for firearms manufacture (FFL07 or 10), but there again, those licenses apply to commercial activity and sale of things that are made or modified.

- - - Updated - - -


3D will move forward independent of firearms. They will not determine its success or failure one way or another.

They may weigh heavily on Big Brother style regulations... [sad2]

The argument is the same for all the goods isn't it? Why would you spend time to design a car if you can not benefit from your work ?
 
Last edited:
Maybe a gun smith license...just feel like all the gun control regulations will go away if 3D printing became reliable
No, far from it. They will and are being used to justify ever more invasive regulation of gun ownership.

If we are to retain the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Constitution, we will need to push despite 3D technology. If anything it is a rhetorical liability until people finally grow up and realize that crime is a people problem, not a gardening tool problem.

They aren't going to realize their laws are futile and give up. If so, we would have won already.
 
Someone has to figure out a way to earn money other wise there will be no motivation to push 3d printing tech any further though

3d printer tech is not driven by ghost gun industry, there are many areas where they are used.

to develop 3d printed designs ... look at Open Software movement. There are a lot of people who are not making money coding and loving it. There are companies that make some money providing support and commercial companies that incorporate open source into their products.
 
The argument is the same for all the goods isn't it? Why would you spent time to design a car if you can benefit from your work ?
Indeed, but the line moves around based on perception of the consumer and his incremental manufacturing cost.

When that incremental cost begins to approach zero, things get weird.

Not to mention cultural problems ("kid's today don't expect to pay for music or software").
 
3d printer tech is not driven by ghost gun industry, there are many areas where they are used.

to develop 3d printed designs ... look at Open Software movement. There are a lot of people who are not making money coding and loving it. There are companies that make some money providing support and commercial companies that incorporate open source into their products.
Few of them continue coding "fo free" indefinitely. Many use free software development to build skill, credential and credibility to "get paid". They may not admit it until later, but, QED: they have jobs now.

Many companies fund large portions of "free" software devel as a loss-leader to their products. Nokia and QT for example.

There is no "free" software, it is only a question of who is funding it and why. On the long timeline, the Stahlman's of the world are few and far between and he's still getting paid for his knowledge.
 
Few of them continue coding "fo free" indefinitely. Many use free software development to build skill, credential and credibility to "get paid". They may not admit it until later, but, QED: they have jobs now.

Many companies fund large portions of "free" software devel as a loss-leader to their products. Nokia and QT for example.

There is no "free" software, it is only a question of who is funding it and why. On the long timeline, the Stahlman's of the world are few and far between and he's still getting paid for his knowledge.

there are many developers who coded in free time and donated their software to the world as a gift. It doesn't mean that they do that 100%, but it's a model that worked for generations. Younger people have more time. I used to do this kind of shit a lot more when I was younger, along with shitton of hours in volunteering. It's harder to do having a family, but no, I didn't get paid and I did not wanted to. This is the same deal as volunteering, but projects are open to global public.

Many companies are doing fusion of free and commercial version with more bells or provided hosting. You can def make money with OSS and many companies do.
 
there are many developers who coded in free time and donated their software to the world as a gift. It doesn't mean that they do that 100%, but it's a model that worked for generations. Younger people have more time. I used to do this kind of shit a lot more when I was younger, along with shitton of hours in volunteering. It's harder to do having a family, but no, I didn't get paid and I did not wanted to. This is the same deal as volunteering, but projects are open to global public.

Many companies are doing fusion of free and commercial version with more bells or provided hosting. You can def make money with OSS and many companies do.
Oh, I've been working with, producing and consuming OSS for my entire career and since the first days of Linux. I think I still have some slackware floppies on a shelf above me here... [laugh]

My point was that I think 99.999% of them inflate the altruism as that "free time" of youth is converted into expertise which is then used to get lunch money and fund wives, children and guns (aka: a job).

Much like civilization, some things you pay for immediately, others you pay forward, but nothing is really free. Money is also not the only currency.
 
No different than turning a chunk of Aluminum in (aka 80% lower) to an AR lower. same requirements to build and manufacture the firearm.

- - - Updated - - -



No way to sell a digital blueprint/ 3D build. Once one person has it, the world has it. there is no way to stop piracy unless you have extreme DRM on the file.

It's not that hard to protect digital blue prints. There's a few ways to keep some one from just taking a screen shot.
At work I have to get prints from a portal from a vendor . I have a weird USB fob that acts as a key to be able to view it. I took a screen shot one day of the print so I could use ms paint to draw on it to show a engineer a number I needed . Some how they new and I got s phone call asking me wtf I was doing .

German companys water mark them for each person there sent to . If there found out in the wild they know who to go after .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There is no "free" software, it is only a question of who is funding it and why.

With software the real money is often in the support, even for a lot of paid software.
Free open source software where there isn't a paid support model often works exactly as well as it had to to solve the problem the last few developers had, because that's the only reason it was created in the first place.
 
When the bad guys can print their own guns (remember zip guns?), gun control laws will become useless (as if they aren't already).
This may make people realize that restrictions on ownership and carry by the good guys should be relaxed, if not eliminated entirely.
 
When the bad guys can print their own guns (remember zip guns?), gun control laws will become useless (as if they aren't already).
This may make people realize that restrictions on ownership and carry by the good guys should be relaxed, if not eliminated entirely.
HAH!

We are already there. There is no demonstrable practical impact to criminal's ability to get guns with all of our legislation (so, sayeth the CDC). In fact, as gun sales have proliferated and bans lifted, violent crime continues to drop.

So, we have already reached the point where "gun control laws are useless".

In fact, despite much pressure to find something, the CDC said in 2003:
CDC said:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.

and then again in 2013 when Obama asked them really nicely to find that Gun-Control works they said:
CDC said:
http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
...
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
...
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

Despite their claims, Brady, Bloomberg, Rosenthol, MA, et al. have been throwing money "researching" this for 2 decades (at least) and despite all that, when the CDC reviews that research... they found nothing.

So, tell us again how people will see this truth and stop pushing for gun control?
 
User151, its been said many times before, but the reason that data and truth will not alter their course is that their agenda has nothing to do with making people safer. It has to do with making them compliant and powerless.

The opposite of safer.

So, no amount of reason, logic and study will stop them from pursuing this line of politics. The only thing we can do is inoculate our fellow citizens to the propaganda.
 
Back
Top Bottom