Is Printing a Gun the Same as Buying a Gun?

Given this environment of legal uncertainty, it's not at all clear that BATFE would not pursue the 3D printer operator who produced the receiver. In this case, charges against the 3D printer operator would likely be unlawful manufacture of a firearm, possibly in addition to charges related to interstate transfer of a firearm. Given the creativity of some US attorneys, perhaps a conspiracy case would be made alleging the buyer of the printed part 'conspired' with the printer operator.

I would also suggest a lower receiver could probably be made from materials weaker than you might imagine. The lower receiver does not bear any gas pressures from the firing of the cartridge, though the holes for the roll pins which hold the hammer and trigger in place would probably start to 'egg' after a round or two. In any case, the legal question has nothing to do with how reliable the resulting firearm is; only whether it meets certain vague and broadly-interpreted legal definitions.

[1] http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machi...

The line is blurred, that is tautological considering the complexification of the issue. The argument would be that the blurring is enough to warrant a different interpretation of the law.

> If the legal fiction is that the lower receiver of that gun is the gun, then legally that didn't change so the method of manufacturing it is not relevant.

Likely so.

> if they don't review the orders (hard to do, after all, you can't know each and every prohibited item) then [they] are still on the hook.

In the past making a custom part required a skilled machinist familiar with common machined parts. They would more than likely recognize an unlabelled but common part.

Now a part can be made without a single human involved, or if there were they could be lesser-skilled cleaning technicians only.

In the past they'd notice what you were doing by default, unless it was severely obfuscated. Now they'd have to hire machinists to spy on customer jobs and try to guess your intent to ban 'bad' items. One is trivial, the other invasive and ultimately impossible.

It's a bit moot. They can't effectively pass a law putting the genie back in the bottle without banning 3d printing and rapid-turnaround prototyping - something which would drive the last of our development businesses away.

That's extremely expensive equipment that you're not going to have at home without a lot of dedication and investment.

You could always send something off to eMachineShop.com, but that's still not really comparable to the not-so-distant future where we'll all have easy access to local 3D printers.

I think this is pretty clear: making something by hand is very different from having a magic button to do it for you. "You could have whittled it out of wood!" completely misses the point.

Unless you also think the creation of high level programming languages was not a qualitative change over the days of punch cards.

In fact, quantitative changes that become qualitative changes by being large enough are the entire reason we're having this discussion in the first place! It's perfectly possible to kill a person with just your hands. "All" a gun does is make it easier... but trying to dismiss all of the legal and moral questions around guns by claiming that it's only a difference of degree, not kind, isn't going to convince very many people. A big enough quantitative change is a qualitative change.

And automatic weapons are regulated in the U.S., they are not prohibited (everywhere, anyway). If you go through the appropriate paperwork (and a few months wait), and live in the appropriate places (Louisiana, etc.), you too can own a (pre-May 1986) fully automatic weapon.

They are legal to own. They require a class III license and no automatic fire guns made after 1986 are permitted to be sold to private citizens.

The assault weapon ban--the federal law banning (among other things) magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds--sunset in 2004. Thirty-round magazines are perfectly legal once again, except in a few states, like California, with their own assault weapon bans.

Oh definitely, when I said federal law I was just referring to the U.S. I don't know enough about UK law to speak to your questions, but they are interesting ones that will have to be answered in the coming years.

PS: Diggin' my copy of Rule 34 that arrived yesterday.

And let's go even further into the hypothetical future where we've made great advances in AI. Also, for whatever reason, a court has found weapons CAD files to be illegal. What will the law say when a machine is intelligent enough to decipher the same human-targeted AR-15 repair manual and reconstruct one from that information?

It's not hard to imagine a Congresscritter raising a fuss over concerns of "children printing machine guns" or some such nonsense, and thereby introducing legislation to regulate such materials, including executable scripts for 3D printing machines. It's even possible to imagine such legislation passing the House and Senate. Our current president would likely sign any such legislation he was given. However, it is very difficult to imagine the legislation surviving a Supreme Court challenge on First Amendment grounds.

Then again, I said the same thing about the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, and SCOTUS upheld that 5-4, so what do I know.

As with most things firearms related, the offense occurs with the action. In this case, the transaction. You can manufacture a firearm with standard machinery and suffer no penalty. The same applies for a printer capable of printing a firearm (or parts). It is when you sell those firearms (or parts) that you have broken the law.

If it is against the law to possess a firearm in your location, then it doesn't matter how you made it. Possession remains illegal.