3D printed Gun restrictions lifted per DOJ ruling.

I made myself a 3D printer in college. Damn it sounds dangerous to do, I'd guess it'd blow up in my hand and I'd never fire one myself. From my limited knowledge it's more like a single shot usage as after the first round the plastic does crack and it'll no longer hold the blast from the chamber, but it'll work for at least that first shot

Not sure if this "liberator" model is something different and actually holds up. I'll have to check it out (and then check out if it's legal to make one in WI, just to say I have one)
Yea, I'd be afraid to fire one. Also, if they don't really hold up for more than a shot or two, it seems like it would be more hassle than it's worth. However, I may print one for the purpose you stated, just so I could say I printed my own gun lol.
 
Yea, I'd be afraid to fire one. Also, if they don't really hold up for more than a shot or two, it seems like it would be more hassle than it's worth. However, I may print one for the purpose you stated, just so I could say I printed my own gun lol.

I'd prefer to go the CNC machine route myself . . . maybe one day.
 
Define tracking system?

Many states require 80% lowers to become serialized . . .
I was just watching some of that video with the little plastic gun. It wasn't serialized was it? I'm not even claiming that these guns are currently feasible for much use or that all that many people currently have the means to produce them. But in a relatively short time, I expect 3-D printer capabilties to increase and costs to decrease.

I'm not losing sleep over this, but I can definitely see problems with a state of affairs where a kid can print up a gun in his room that is reasonably effective, inexpensive, and easily disposed of.
 
Wait periods are not the law in many states. A background check from an FFL is, but in any state that allows person-to-person transactions (guns being sold to someone else, guns being willed down to another person, etc), background checks do not occur.

People have been assembling their own weapons for a long time, and most states do not require you to register your firearm with state or local authorities. As such, these weapons fall into the same category upon production: unregistered firearms.

I believe that all gun purchases should be background checked, and all guns should be registered.

Are you creating an equivalency between a Schedule 1 narcotic and a Constitutionally-protected freedom? That seems like an odd argument to make...

I said that just because somebody can make something at home does not mean it should be legal.

A problem with this analogy is that with one activity, meth, the product itself and its use are illegal. With gun-smithing, the products and their use are not inherently illegal.

While I personally oppose any move to register gun owners, I have no problem at all with guns having a tracking system, having serial numbers, etc. Relatively cheap and easy to dispose of guns could make murder charges that much harder to prove, etc.

Of course unregistered homemade guns would make murders harder to solve.

Building your own firearm is perfectly legal, and serves a useful function.

Your attempt at conflating the perfectly legal act of building your own firearm, with illegal drug use failed.

No, I feel pretty good about it.

Just because you can make something at home, does not mean it should be legal. I do not believe it should be legal to build firearms at home.

Checks are fine . . . waiting periods are stupid. Unless your NICs check is delayed folks shouldn't have to wait to exercise a right. If you get a proceed you should be able to walk out of the store with it that second.

You aware that folks can buy 80% receivers without checks now?

I do not think you should be able to buy 80% receivers without a background check.
 
I was just watching some of that video with the little plastic gun. It wasn't serialized was it? I'm not even claiming that these guns are currently feasible for much use or that all that many people currently have the means to produce them. But in a relatively short time, I expect 3-D printer capabilties to increase and costs to decrease.

I'm not losing sleep over this, but I can definitely see problems with a state of affairs where a kid can print up a gun in his room that is reasonably effective, inexpensive, and easily disposed of.

I honestly don't know anything about that printed gun . . . I haven't really paid much attention to it since the original story broke several years ago. Doesn't really interest me until 3d printers can do things on par with a CNC machine (same materials, etc) . . . maybe they can now and I'm just not aware.

Sure, I'd prefer that some kid not have access to print a gun, but I don't know about how reliable a plastic, 3d printed firearm would be and how many uses a person would get out of it. Doesn't seem worth it to me.

I'd think parts would be more valuable . . . folks are printing bump stocks, etc. now.
 
I do not think you should be able to buy 80% receivers without a background check.

Why? You're not buying a firearm . . . you're buying a useless piece of aluminum or polymer.
 
My concern is the plastic used to make the gun strong enough to fight tyranny?
 
Why? You're not buying a firearm . . . you're buying a useless piece of aluminum or polymer.

Because when you buy an 80% receiver you're buying something that is only useless unless you intend to construct a firearm?
 
Why? You're not buying a firearm . . . you're buying a useless piece of aluminum or polymer.

To build a gun with.

I'm a gun owner. I like guns, I shoot guns, and I'm actually really good at it. I've been shooting since I was a little kid.

But there is a whole group of gun-lovers that I do not understand, which would be fine, except for the fact that they push for gun legislation to be so lax that at this point they are pretending that loop-holes to acquiring unregistered firearms without any background checks is somehow a good thing.

I do not want convicted felons to be able to download and print guns. I don't want them to be able to order what basically amounts to a disassembled gun, assemble it at their house, and have an unregistered gun, without passing a background check.

None of this makes any sense to me.
 
I think the issue would be that relatively few people can assemble their own pipe shotgun, but 3-D technology carries potential to spread amateur gun-smithing abilities much more broadly.
Yep. It renders the idea of gun control in any corner of the world completely useless.

That was the entire point of Mr. Wilson's invention.

Do you remember actor Jeff Goldblum's line in the movie Jurassic Park? "Life finds a way".

Liberty finds a way.

I'm bit skeptical that homemade firearms are currently all that common.

This rabbit hole goes pretty deep. 80% lower receivers are quite popular now. A judge has ruled that a firearm lower isn't legally considered a firearm when it's only 80% complete. Companies now sell 80% lowers of some of the world's most common and popular firearms. The end-user finishes the last 20%, and at that point they have built their own firearm.

80% AR-15 lower receiver:


AK-47 80% lower receiver:


Glock 43 80% lower receiver:


I would find you videos of 80% lower receiver build parties, but YouTube is taken them all down.
 
On a slightly different note, I've seen a few folks claiming that the government explicitly admitted in the agreement that non-automatic rifles like the AR-15 are not military weapons. I haven't been able to substantiate this to my liking. If true, seems like it could be an influential admission going forward.

Has anyone else heard this?
 
I believe that all gun purchases should be background checked, and all guns should be registered.
And that's fine that you believe that, but what you are suggesting is a significant shift in policy. As such, your belief in the way that the world should work doesn't have much bearing on modern policy regarding this topic. To say that these printed guns should be illegal because they aren't registered ignores the ocean of weapons that currently aren't registered and yet are still legal. Do you see the point that I'm making?

I said that just because somebody can make something at home does not mean it should be legal.
That's something that I understand and agree with. My retort is that the 2A is treated completely differently than every other right in the BoR. People talk about "common sense gun laws," insist that gun rights advocate "meet us somewhere in the middle," and other similar lines. Imagine supplanting that same logic to other rights. "I know the 8th Amendment says no cruel and unusual punishment, but c'mon. We only ripped out his fingernails to get a confession because we knew he was a murderer! It's not like they won't grow back!" Another example: "I get that the whole 'double jeopardy' thing is important to you and all, but just look at OJ Simpson. That guy did it, clear as day! Let's have another trial, find the guy guilty, and then fry him like we should have done years ago!"

Rights are rights, and they are super important. All I'm asking for is that the 2A get the same respect that every other right gets, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Liberty finds a way.

I've always held the philosophy that complete liberty is anarchy. The best liberty entails some rules and some enforcement of those rules. Ie, no murder, no rape, etc. I'm strongly pro 2a and am usually skeptical when folks start chirping about "reasonable gun control laws". But no gun control at all seems unreasonable to me.
 
To build a gun with.

You also want a background check on the jigs and tools folks would use to complete the receiver?

I'm a gun owner. I like guns, I shoot guns, and I'm actually really good at it. I've been shooting since I was a little kid.

Okay.

But there is a whole group of gun-lovers that I do not understand, which would be fine, except for the fact that they push for gun legislation to be so lax that at this point they are pretending that loop-holes to acquiring unregistered firearms without any background checks is somehow a good thing.

Not really. We're just fed up with giving into gun control folks at every turn . . . we have some very restrictive laws that often go without being enforced. Until authorities decide to adequately staff agencies to enforce existing laws I'm not okay with yet more feel good legislation.

I do not want convicted felons to be able to download and print guns. I don't want them to be able to order what basically amounts to a disassembled gun, assemble it at their house, and have an unregistered gun, without passing a background check.

None of this makes any sense to me.

Straw purchases and stolen firearms will still be an issue . . . illegal gun trade will still happen.

Registering guns is one of the dumbest ideas anyone (especially a proclaimed gun owner) could ever advocate for . . . authorities can't enforce existing laws, but yet they'd be expected to make sure if I said I had 10 firearms that I actually had 10 on hand. How exactly would that happen?

It's none of my business how many rounds of ammo you have . . . and it's none of my business how many firearms you have in your gun safe. Just like it's none of the governments business.
 
Because when you buy an 80% receiver you're buying something that is only useless unless you intend to construct a firearm?

I know what an 80% receiver is intended to eventually be used for . . . that still doesn't change the fact that at the time of purchase it is NOT a firearm.

So now we're going to conduct background checks based on intent to use a product?

What about a solid block of aluminum that could potentially be milled into a receiver?
 
I've always held the philosophy that complete liberty is anarchy. The best liberty entails some rules and some enforcement of those rules. Ie, no murder, no rape, etc. I'm strongly pro 2a and am usually skeptical when folks start chirping about "reasonable gun control laws". But no gun control at all seems unreasonable to me.

We're not advocating for the removal of gun laws . . . well, except for that stupid NFA. That thing needs to die.
 
If you oppose the dissemination of this information, you're going to have to have a better reason than just "guns=bad".

Im still waiting for a reason showing that more guns=good. An the point someone made about an individual making meth went over your head.
 
And that's fine that you believe that, but what you are suggesting is a significant shift in policy. As such, your belief in the way that the world should work doesn't have much bearing on modern policy regarding this topic. To say that these printed guns should be illegal because they aren't registered ignores the ocean of weapons that currently aren't registered and yet are still legal. Do you see the point that I'm making?

I understand the point that you are making. What I see often, and strongly disagree with, is when people say something should be fine just because something similar already exists. My opinion, is that there should not be unregistered legal guns floating around. If my gun was used in a crime, the fact that it is registered to me would make tracking down the killer a whole lot easier.

That's something that I understand and agree with. My retort is that the 2A is treated completely differently than every other right in the BoR. People talk about "common sense gun laws," insist that gun rights advocate "meet us somewhere in the middle," and other similar lines. Imagine supplanting that same logic to other rights. "I know the 8th Amendment says no cruel and unusual punishment, but c'mon. We only ripped out his fingernails to get a confession because we knew he was a murderer! It's not like they won't grow back!" Another example: "I get that the whole 'double jeopardy' thing is important to you and all, but just look at OJ Simpson. That guy did it, clear as day! Let's have another trial, find the guy guilty, and then fry him like we should have done years ago!"

Rights are rights, and they are super important. All I'm asking for is that the 2A get the same respect that every other right gets, nothing more, nothing less.

Our rights cannot be fully explained in single sentences. Yes, we have freedom of speech. But that does not mean you can incite violence. We have the right to practice our religion, but that does not mean we can go in the middle of the street and commit a human sacrifice.

The 2nd Amendment has useful limitations. You have to be 18. That's not in the Constitution. You can't be a felon. That's not in the Constitution. I doubt very many people (although there definitely would be some) would say that a 10 year old should be able to go buy a gun because it's his right as an American.

I believe any law abiding citizen should be able to purchase and own a firearm. I do not believe any random person should able to print their own in their house.
 
Back
Top