On December 9th, the Undetectable Firearms Act was extended before its built-in expiration was to take place. The law, which we’ve written about once or twice on 3DPI, was established in the 1980s as a means of preventing plastic weapons from passing through metal detectors and used in important and/or crowded places. With the law’s potential expiration coinciding with the publication of Defense Distributed’s 3D printed Liberator pistol, 3D printing and the Undetectable Firearms Act became forever linked in people’s minds. Over at Public Knowledge, Michael Weinberg has a fairly objective outline of what these two things have to do with one another, what they don’t have to do with one another and how the Undetectable Firearms Act turned out in the end.
When Representative Steve Israel first produced a bill extending the original law, he had major concerns about the 3D printing of guns and, so, as Public Knowledge explains, included many measures to regulate the ability to 3D print firearms. Apparently, PK spoke up, noting that making guns in one’s own home has been around for awhile — including a site called CNCguns, which is what you think it is — and that undetectable weapons don’t have to be produced via 3D printing. Weinberg explains his point of view eloquently in this last post:
Our primary request was that Rep. Israel focus the bill on the undetectability of firearms. Press coverage aside, the method of manufacture of an undetectable firearm should not particularly matter for undetectable firearm regulation. If a gun gets smuggled through airport security, it does not really matter how it was made. What matters is that it was undetectable, not that it was manufactured on a 3D printer, or a CNC machine or with an injection molder. Public Knowledge takes no position on firearms regulation, so our only request is that any potential firearms regulation not unnecessarily undermine 3D printing.
Israel, in response, downplayed the 3D printing aspect of his plans and “focused primarily on including a requirement that any firearm feature at least one functional metal part”. Finally, instead of voting on Israel’s bill, which still made some reference to the technology, the House of Representatives voted to extend the original Undetectable Firearms Act, which doesn’t mention 3D printing at all. This was also passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Obama on December 9th.
This is a good sign for those worried about the regulation of 3D printing, but Weinberg proceeds cautiously, warning that this hasn’t prevented the possibility of future 3D printing legislation. He concludes by using the entire story to symbolize the disconnection of consumers from the means of production, saying:
Perhaps more importantly, this entire episode highlights just how disconnected we as a society are from manufacturing and making things. 3D printing is an exciting technology that empowers people to make all sorts of things (not necessarily the “everything” that some lawmakers imagine, but plenty of things nonetheless). But it is not the only way that people can make things. Although it can often feel this way, not every object or device comes fully formed from a factory. People have had tools to make things on their own since the dawn of mankind, and many still have those tools at home today.
While it’s true that there is a disconnect, in the developed world, between consumers and the way the sausage gets made, Weinberg misses a more relevant conclusion, perhaps because Public Knowledge does not want to make a stand on firearm regulation in the first place.
I am completely for the ban of undetectable firearms, but I am also for much greater gun control in the United States. I worry that, by signing such a bill, Congress and the White House can claim that they’ve done something about gun control, without actually doing anything, despite public demand for universal background checks and a study put out by the American Journal of Medicine that provides evidence suggesting that high gun ownership is linked to increased gun-related deaths. But, then again, I guess that that’s just my own gripe and not an objective opinion that would result in greater public safety for all.
Source: Public Knowledge
Michael Molitch-Hou , in the grand scheme of things, your opinion and progressive liberal socialist outlook… is of no value and really doesn’t matter!! I just thought, you would like to know.
Christian, thanks for your criticism. While it may be your opinion that my point of view in life is of no value, I don’t think that it is the opinion of all of our readers.
obviously Mike you have no value on human life as you advocate the removal of self defense from society.
Is that not the same outlook that resulted in the world’s powers pointing thousands of nuclear warheads at each other? If humans can really only achieve peace via Mutually Assured Destruction, maybe we really are as M.A.D. as the acronym suggests…?
Just a thought…
That’s a pretty wild conclusion to jump to, Bûttê. Why does it have to be so black and white to suggest that my belief regarding gun control – not self defense – means that I don’t value human life whatsoever?
Just curious, how do you feel about the death penalty?
Mike Molitch-Hou, I don’t think your opinion is worthless, but it is clear that your knowledge of gun control is minimal. The problem with current gun control is not that there is not enough of it, but rather that the courts do not actually enforce them.
I’m sure you are aware that many criminals commit crimes again once out of prison, well here are the facts about that where it relates to firearms: committing any crime with a firearm is supposed to be a felony and 10 years in prison… the way the law is written, any gun in the criminal’s possession, any magazine, and every single round of ammunition could each count for those 10 years… a crime committed with a semi-automatic pistol with 10 rounds of ammunition and 1 magazine would result in a prison sentence of 120 years plus the sentence for the crime committed (murder, robbery, etc.)… facing that kind of punishment, there would be quite a few less crimes committed with firearms… not none, but quite a few less. So the question is, why is leniency always urged in these situations and why cannot the justice system serve the innocent as it is meant to do?
The problem is not in the access to guns, but rather a lack of personal responsibility along with a justice system that would rather redeem those who willingly hurt and kill others rather than protect the innocent.
Your question about the death penalty? I am for it, those who commit particularly heinous crimes (rape, multiple murder, many single murders, etc.) have proven that they do not belong in society and the continuing move for leniency and redeeming these individuals does much more to endanger the public and innocents than anything else. Why should society bear the burden of supporting the very worst of the worst in relative comfort while their victims continue to suffer for the crimes committed upon them?
I am a member of the NRA and not, completely, against universal background checks. I think most gun owners are becoming more resistant to gun control measures (at least most of those I know), because those on the left continue to write laws that they then refuse to enforce upon the criminal element while constantly infringing upon what is, in the end, a Constitutional Right. I’ve been shooting for over half my life and have known and met a fair number of gun owners and shooters, none of whom has committed any crimes… no murders, no crime of any kind…
As you can almost certainly tell, I am no liberal. I am for equality and freedom (in everything) and for everyone. As long as what you and I do does not harm anyone else, then no one has any right to tell us that we cannot do it.
Thanks for the thoughtful response! It makes me really happy that you took the time to write out clearly what you believe and what you disagree with about what I’ve said, instead of just yelling-typing about my opinions being worthless. I think that only with clear reasoned discussions can we reach any sort of consensus about anything.
You’re right in that I do have limited knowledge about gun control laws. I’m not completely aware of what sort of prosecution takes place with crimes committed with a given firearm and the number of rounds on a person. My main concern about firearm regulation comes from the growing number of news stories about angry, irresponsible, or mental ill people with easy access to dangerous weapons. While we probably disagree on the need for guns in our society, we both agree on universal background checks. I might push it further, but think that that is the minimum we can do to prevent people who are not as responsible and intelligent as you might be to get a gun easily.
Other problems about effectively enforcing existing gun laws in the judicial system are another topic altogether. I agree that violent crime is deplorable, no matter who is committing it. I’m glad that gun rights advocates in your circle are concerned about the enforcement of such laws. I don’t debate the topic often, but when I have, the gun rights advocates don’t make mention of enforcing laws, they fear that their guns will be taken away. The only very specific measure that I think that you, I, and a lot of people agree on is universal background checks.
I only asked Bûttê about the death penalty because he questioned my value of human life. While I’ll admit that committing a violent crime of any kind means that you forfeit some of your rights, I am not in favor of the death penalty. I am not God, don’t know what God’s will is, and do not feel as though I have the authority to know who should be punished with death. More importantly, we’ve been wrong about a lot of people on death row, who were later exonerated either before or after they’ve died. That’s a pretty big thing to be wrong about.
Anyway, I wasn’t really trying to argue the death penalty, I was just trying to make a point about valuing human life. It probably wasn’t the best route to take.
Thank you as well for the reasoned reply… there is very little reason in the debate at all.
As for the justice system, in my community (I live in California), most crime seems to be treated as a joke by the judges when it comes to sentencing, except financial crime… bank robbery seems to be the most heavily punished crime, murder and similar crimes will get you no more than half the sentence that a bank robbery or similar crime will get.
The worry from many gun owners (and I am not immune) is that Universal Background Checks (which almost everyone actually agrees is not a bad idea) seem to inevitably lead to a discussion of universal registration and tracking (which I don’t believe is a good idea at all)… and that leads to a lot of worry, especially with some of the recent government overreach and the seeming inability of the Courts to remedy such actions (the government actions after Hurricane Katrina is an example where law enforcement did a house to house confiscation of firearms even while there was no real law enforcement presence or effort… and there was no attempt to return property later… the situation really requires much more space that this, but that was the beginning of it).
Your comment about the growing number of news stories about shootings brings up something else interesting that I ran across the other day. Evidently, Northeastern University did a study on mass shootings and discovered no increase in frequency in the past 2 decades (I read this a few days ago, I forget where, but you should be able to find it). That doesn’t really say too much, one way or the other about gun control, but there is something that is rarely mentioned by those who support gun control: very nearly every mass shooting has occurred in a place where firearms are forbidden. This cannot be a coincidence, and countries where firearms are nearly impossible to acquire have frequently had similar attacks occur with knives, swords, etc. with relatively similar severity (the continual tightening of the laws in the UK over what can be possessed shows the overall failure of their gun control regulations lowering violent crime… I believe that even steak knives and other kitchen knives are now regulated). There have been a fair number (there are studies putting it quite high) of situations where legal firearms use discouraged or outright stopped crimes (including several mass shootings), but the use of firearms in self-defense and the defense of others is routinely (and nearly universally) ignored by those supporting gun control. Would it be nice if everyone were to simply get along? Yes, but that is unrealistic, the reality is that a firearm for self defense makes everyone equal… the smallest woman can defend herself against the largest man or the expert at martial arts, with practically no training or physical ability… that is something that has never before existed on this planet, an equality that allows universal self defense. In a world where law-abiding citizens can possess a firearm to defend themselves in case the worst happens, no longer does strength rule, instead life is a more democratic prospect… total equality (this last is my personal philosophy… even though the majority never have to or would never have to use a firearm in this manner, the possibility promotes true equality where it matters most, the preservation of life and health).
As for the death penalty… I agree, the record hasn’t been too good with a lot of the justice system, but that is, I believe, a reflection on the failings of the system that need to be worked out. Over the past few years, there have been far too many situations where overzealous prosecutors (the Duke Rape Case?) attempted to convict upon the flimsiest of evidence in order to improve their own image… One guilty person being sentenced is too much, but society seems to try to convict all too many people in the court of public opinion (George Zimmerman?) rather than allowing facts and juries to do their job. In the end, that is, I think, a problem that society as a whole needs to deal with rather than, necessarily, one with the Justice system… innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the law of the land, instead it seems that this is only the case when it is popular for the accused to be innocent.
I think I will make a liberator variant and release it on DEFCAD with the name “Molitch-Hou”
That’s really terrifying and could be taken as a threat.
Your world must be a scary place if that constitutes a threat and is truly ‘really terrifying’.
Dude, that’s a really weird thing to say.
DEFCAD no longer accepts weapons Butte, all you’d accomplish if you succeeded would be in getting Cody Wilson and yourself arrested.
Your opinions are certainly most welcome, as anyone’s, but please ensure those opinions are not statements that could be interpreted as threats.
Thanks Butte 🙂
So designing a 3D printed gun in CAD and naming it after a anti-freedom advocate is a threat?
Wow..
Hi there, thank you for your reply. I’m in the UK, we don’t have the same gun laws as the US. I’m just trying to play my own small part in protecting my country from some of the more negative aspects of Americanisation / Americanization.
I don’t want my potential future kids growing up in a society where there is any chance that sociopaths can access guns without law enforcement knowing about it.
You are suffering from American-centric thinking: Something I notice as widely prolific in the USA. No nationalism here: I don’t doubt that the UK was the same when it was the world’s leading power. Primacy and hegemony seem go to the head of whole nations, not just individuals.
Peace to you brother, we are merely citizens of the same world in my mind, a world that deserves an era of peace 🙂
If I were shown a gun with my name on it, I would either take it to mean that that gun is mine, so I should take it. Or that it was meant to shoot me.
How did we suddenly start attacking the author? Yes, the last paragraph is a liberal viewpoint on gun control, which can spark all kinds of argument, but I think the interesting thing about this whole legislation is that it was an attempt to regulate 3D printing that was overturned. 3D printing comes from the same open source mentality that the internet developed from which is why I think there is such passion against it’s regulation, similar to how pirating movie regulation wasn’t passed. However, when it comes to things that can cause harm, is there a governmental role towards regulation? Currently, the argument made by public knowledge was that making guns happens all the time and currently the 3D printed guns can’t be made by anything aside from $10,000 machines. This won’t be the case in the future. What happens when high grade 3D printers become more widely available and given the internet’s wide reach, clearly the code and the machines could fall into the hands of those that wish others harm be they an ex-boyfriend or girlfriend, a Sandy Hook shooter or a terrorist. If this happens, will there be an international attempt at regulation? I’d argue that it is the government’s role to regulate when there is a risk of harm towards others, such as in the case with drunk driving, and that could spiral into a guns discussion, but I’d rather this be a discussion on what this site is about, 3D printing and whether there is an argument for regulating 3D printing in any situation given it’s roots in open source.
Michael Molitch-Hou, I appreciate and agree with your viewpoint on gun control.
I also understand that this does not make you a socialist.
Very timely and detailed coverage of an important topic. Good journalistic work, Michael. Thumbs up !
“focused primarily on including a requirement that any firearm feature at least one functional metal part”
This requirement will not stop a criminal that wants to do harm.
It may be possible to evade detection with an all plastic gun but what about ammunition?