Skip to main content

This weekend the ATF approved "Defense Distributed" for a manufacturing license. This means the self described Libertarian/Anarchist  Cody Wilson can sell the guns he "prints" with a 3-d printer.

This will allow him to raise more funds to further designs aimed at making guns untraceable and accessible to everyone regardless of their legal status. (in other words, allow fellows, mentally unstable, or criminals)

 Cody Wilson has expressed in public his goal of making plans public for anyone to have and use with the idea of undermining any gun control laws.  Yet the ATF issued a permit.

Great job ATF.

What should have happened is the ATF raiding  Cody Wilson's home after he posted on line video footage of his illegal making of a firearm and then shooting it.  This was before he had a permit.

Originally Wilson had rented a 3-d printer to carry out his schema of flooding the world with untraceable guns (the AR-15 specifically).  When the company that owned the printer found out they voided the contract and took it back. (rightly fearing that they would be held liable for its use)

This prompted Wilson to set up a "kickstarter" funding schema and quickly raised enough money to buy his own. (never underestimate the power of anti-government types) The idea that you could print up an AR-15 with out the Fed Gov knowing appeals to many gun owners.

Well, now that the ATF, who is suppose to control guns, has given their approval to Wilson's scheme to flood the world with guns. His stated goal is to lower the cost of making these guns to under $500, and expand from just the AR-15 to handguns and shotguns.  He is also waiting for permission from the ATF to "print" fully automatic guns.  Right now the permit he has is for semi-auto's.

Just what we need, printable machine guns.

11:44 AM PT: Links: http://www.wired.com/...
The original 3-d printer was taken back by the owner because it would violate Federal law to make a firearm even if you're not selling it and to make a firearm that is undetectable (plastic) is illegal too.

http://www.forbes.com/...
the "kickstarter" fundraising that was used to expand the number of unaccountable guns being designed.

http://www.forbes.com/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

    by DrillSgtK on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:05:41 AM PDT

  •  Links, please (0+ / 0-)

    We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

    by Samer on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:07:53 AM PDT

  •  I couple of things (12+ / 0-)

    First, manufacturing your own guns is legal. What is not legal is making them and then selling them. That's why you need a manufacture license.

    Secondly, Wilson is 'printing' the firing mechanism for the gun not the entire gun itself, you'd still need a barrel, stock etc to use the gun.

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:10:39 AM PDT

    •  The part that the ATF calls a firearm (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CwV, tofumagoo, DvCM

      is the part that Wilson is making and NOT putting a serial number on.  It is illegal to manufacture a firearm with out ATF approval, which is why Stratasys took back the printer it leased to Wilson.

      You can buy all the other parts of an AR-15 with out any checks because the ATF does not consider them a "firearm".  only the lower receiver is regulated as a firearm.  To make that you need permission, to buy it you have to get a background check.  Wilson short-cuts this control by printing a lower recover with out any serial number or registration with the ATF.

      This allows an untraceable gun to be made by anyone with access to a 3-d printer.

      So needing a barrel means nothing, anyone can buy one with out any questions or background checks.  

      Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

      by DrillSgtK on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:51:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's legal to make a gun. (4+ / 0-)

        If you're going to manufacture them for resell you need to be licensed.

           

        With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency.

            [18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]

        http://www.atf.gov/...

        Look, I tried to be reasonable...

        by campionrules on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:08:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nevermind (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OldSoldier99, gerrilea, theatre goon

          I see we're talking at crosspurposes here.

          Wilson did manufacture the lower receiver. Which requires a permit from the ATF.

          Your concern is that he's going to release the schematic so that people can do it themselves. At which point they would be breaking the law if they did not obtain a permit.

          It's just like any emerging technology - the technology advances faster than the regulation or law.

          I still don't see the need for panic.

          Look, I tried to be reasonable...

          by campionrules on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:12:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, KVoimakas

            Releasing the schematic (which DD did) doesn't break the law either.  A schematic is not a firearm, and you can sell them if you'd like.  Only the sale of a "firearm" as defined by 27 CFR 478.11 is regulated.  I'm still unclear as to whether the lower constitutes a firearm (as opposed to the upper, which houses bolt carrier group), but so long as he doesn't sell he's in the clear.

            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

            by Patrick Costighan on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:49:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Hes not selling the plans (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DvCM, KVoimakas

            hes giving them away for free.  The point of this "movement" is to eventually make a 100% printable weapon and publish the plans free world wide.

            So far, they are only working on the lower register... with a side foray in to large ammunition clips in response to the new laws threatening to regulate/ban them.  The 100-round printable magazine that one of the groups has tested and published is called the "Cuomo Model" just as an unsubtle F-U to Andrew Cuomo for pushing gun control legislation.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:13:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  barrel, stock, etc (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, theatre goon, DvCM, KVoimakas

      records of the sales of those parts are not kept for 25+ years, so it would be much harder to track down and confiscate them later.

      Your end of the Constitution is sinking.

      by happymisanthropy on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:52:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Also, (10+ / 0-)

    As a licensed manufacturer, as Wilson now is, he is responsible under the same laws and regulations like any gigantic gun manufacturers. He's not getting some special treatment because he's devised a way to make gun mechanisms in a non traditional manner.

    Will 3-D printing make do it yourself gun making easier? The jury is still out on the viability of this method including the technology and the materials used.

    But no, the ATF is not greenlighting a 'scheme to flood the world with cheap guns.'  Ironic that phrase, because the world is already awash in cheap guns.

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:15:31 AM PDT

    •  He may be under the same rules now (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DvCM

      but his goal is to develop, test it out, and then give it away, a system to let anyone make a firearm with out getting permission from the ATF.

      There are no controls on what he does with the research he does with the money he will be able to get from selling his guns.

      It is not like he wanted to build a company that would make guns and out do everyone else in the market place.  He wants to make a system that allows ANYONE to make a gun ANYTIME regardless of what the law is.  that is his goal, his efforts, his plan.  yet the ATF knowing this, granted him a permit.

      Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

      by DrillSgtK on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:55:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Here's another one to chew on: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MGross
    •  Well there's a loophole that should be (0+ / 0-)

      slammed shut.
      There is something radically wrong with these gunloons!
      Flood the world with untraceable semi-automatic weapons! How fu(king stupid can you get?
      And this guy is YARGO?

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:43:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Maybe there are issues with the info within (0+ / 0-)

    the diary - I don't know.  Tipped because it provides information on an issue that seems to be getting to be bigger and bigger.

  •  Re: (7+ / 0-)

    Evidence that Cody Wilson violated the law?  He didn't manufacture a firearm or ammunition; he manufactured magazines and a lower receiver.  Even if he did manufacture a firearm, so long as he didn't sell it he'd still be in the clear.

    Lovely to see people calling for the arrest of American citizens without charge.

    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

    by Patrick Costighan on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 10:48:54 AM PDT

    •  The lower receiver IS a firearm (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Patrick Costighan, DvCM

      Under US law, that ATF only regulates the lower receiver.  that is the "firearm" part.  The barrel, tiger, high capacity mags, stocks etc, are not considered firearms and can be bought and sold by anyone with out any checks or rules.  

      So making a "lower receiver" was manufacturing a firearm, in the eyes of the ATF.  Who granted a permit to do that anytime he wants now.

      Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

      by DrillSgtK on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:58:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  An ATF Raid? Are you daft? (7+ / 0-)

    It is 100.00% LEGAL to manufacture your own weapon.  Period.  It is just as legal to video tape yourself shooting it (legally) and detailing how you made it.

    WTF?

    And hes not printing full guns.  Even he has said that the current printable materials could not withstand the forces of gunfire.  In fact, his first several models of firing mechanisms all shattered after a few shots.  I think the first blew apart on the first trigger pull.

    Printable machinery parts are the future.  People will use this technology very soon for 1,000,000 different reasons, most of them very good.  MIT even developed a prototype of printable solar cells.

    I get it.. you don't like guns.  Im not a huge fan either, but ATF raids and seizures of property for people doing things that are legal but objectionable?

    We are better than this.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 11:12:29 AM PDT

    •  It is not 100% legal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DvCM

      it is 100% legal to assemble a gun from parts, but not to make the "firearm" part, in this case the Lower Receiver.  that is the part that is stamped with a reported serial number. (the ATF tracks the numbers of all firearms made in the US...for now).  

      Wilson had this crazy idea that it is legal to make the controlled part with out a permit as long as he promised to not sell it or use it.  Wiser legal minds said no and took away his 3-d printer he had leased so they would not be held responsible.  

      Stratasys’s legal counsel wrote: “It is the policy of Stratasys not to knowingly allow its printers to be used for illegal purposes. Therefore, please be advised that your lease of the Stratasys uPrint SE is cancelled at this time and Stratasys is making arrangements to pick up the printer,”

      yet the ATF, who should be as wise as a for profit company, went ahead and granted Wilson permission to build away and develop new ways to get around the existing gun laws.

      Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

      by DrillSgtK on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:03:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea, Neo Control, KVoimakas

        It is entirely legal to make your own lower receiver.  You just can't sell it without an FFL (and I'm still unclear as to whether the lower is actually the regulated part).

        Stratasys was out of its mind when it revoked its lease, but that doesn't matter anymore.  DD purchased one outright, and now Wilson can make and sell his product.

        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

        by Patrick Costighan on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 12:53:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  its not a crazy idea (4+ / 0-)
        Wilson had this crazy idea that it is legal to make the controlled part with out a permit as long as he promised to not sell it or use it.
        That is true.  If he is not selling it, he can make anything he wants.  And while the printing company is free to make any decision regarding its equipment and the leases it signs, the whole reason they pulled it (aside from just not wanting to be associated with this) is because he didn't have a license.  ...so he applied to get one.

        Even with this, he has stated that hes not going to sell anything unless and until he gets Class 2 Special Occupational Taxpayer status.  

        For personal use, what would a law prohibiting this even look like?  The government will tell you what you can or cant PRINT in your house?  Are the digital plans themselves illegal?  How would this be remotely enforceable?  I can see them making all kind of felony offenses for the sales and distribution of these things but no way in hell can/should the government try to block individuals from making things at home for their own use.  

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:08:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Let this go dude. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, KVoimakas

        You're wrong. Manufacturing a firearm for your own use is perfectly legal.

        The lower receiver cannot be sold without a license, and must be semi-auto, but outside of those limitations you can do as you please.

        As it should be.

  •  this diary gets most of the facts right, (10+ / 0-)

    But managed to draw completely incorrect conclusions from those facts.

    1) The lower receiver of an AR-15 is the firearm, so far as federal law is concerned.

    2) So he did manufacture a firearm without a manufacturers license.

    So far, so good.

    Where you go off the trails is in thinking that he committed a crime by doing so. He didn't. It is entirely legal to manufacture a firearm, using commercial parts or not,  provided that the firearm is not otherwise illegal and you do not sell it.

    You pretty clearly don't think that should be true, but it is.

    --Shannon

    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

    by Leftie Gunner on Mon Mar 18, 2013 at 01:14:15 PM PDT

  •  You are assuming (0+ / 0-)

    ATF is run by competent people with the support of the government they work for. But since before Waco ATF has been targeted by conservativesin Congress intent on diminishing the ATF's mandate and mission.

    Due to gun lobby opposition, the bureau has not had a permanent director since the position was made subject to U.S. Senate approval in 2006.
    As it is B. Todd Jones is probably not the sharpest tool in the box, so there's no telling that having him permanently installed will be much of an improvement.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site