We 3D-Printed Luigi Mangione's Ghost Gun. It Was Legal | Hacker News Reader

We 3D-Printed Luigi Mangione's Ghost Gun. It Was Legal

wired.com

27 pointsgaws22 comments

Lol you can 3d print a gun in my state, stick it down your waist band, and go about your day, and you are legally good to go no law broken no paperwork needed. You could even walk in a bank with it -- As long as you don't plan on opening an account, then you need zee papers as that is too dangerous.

Also the silencer doesn't have to be made by an FFL as the article states. If you pay $200 for the tax stamp you can legally make it yourself.

I've heard that the timeline to get the stamps for suppressors is less now but it used to take sometimes a year to a year and a half to get the stamp.

It depends on what type of transfer you're doing but it's way faster now: https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/current-processing-times

It would be a form 1, there is no transfer in this case.

A suppressor is transferred from an FLL to a buyer via a Form 4, not a Form 1. Form 1 is for the manufacturing of an NFA item and most people are not manufacturing suppressors, they are purchased.

All of these comments are wrong and you sound very uneducated.

- Certain states have serialization requirements and registration once a firearm is assembled (the slide is connected to the frame).

- Many states require a permit to conceal carry but may only require a driver’s license to purchase (meaning you can own but not conceal without a permit).

- If a store posts signage saying firearms are prohibited, you legally can enter, however you can be trespassed if they discover you possess a firearm. This is generally not a criminal charge, unless your firearm is possessed illegally or another violation has taken place.

- A “suppressor” (the more correct and accurate term) is purchased from an FFL and transferred to the buyer via an ATF Form 4 (not a Form 1). Additionally, certain states do not allow the possession of a suppressor, regardless of the legality at the Federal level. FFLs don’t generally manufacture suppressors, they sell them.

>- Certain states have serialization requirements and registration once a firearm is assembled (the slide is connected to the frame).

Cool, not mine, not for a title 1 firearm like a handgun. I did say 'my state' not 'your state.'

>- Many states require a permit to conceal carry but may only require a driver’s license to purchase (meaning you can own but not conceal without a permit).

Cool, mine doesn't require a drivers license to make a gun and doesn't require a CCW or ID to conceal it.

>- If a store posts signage saying firearms are prohibited, you legally can enter, however you can be trespassed if they discover you possess a firearm. This is generally not a criminal charge, unless your firearm is possessed illegally or another violation has taken place.

My local bank ('a bank') doesn't have that, maybe yours does.

>- A “suppressor” (the more correct and accurate term) is purchased from an FFL and transferred to the buyer via an ATF Form 4 (not a Form 1). Additionally, certain states do not allow the possession of a suppressor, regardless of the legality at the Federal level. FFLs don’t generally manufacture suppressors, they sell them.

FFL type 7 makes suppressors for a profit. You generally cannot make silencers intended for sale without an FFL.

A private individual can make them with a form 1 without involving an FFL. That is, you pay the NFA tax stamp filed under form 1 and make it, there is no transfer or from 4 needed if you legally make a silencer.

I don't care which you call it, the NFA calls it a silencer, it is dumb but the government doesn't give a shit that you call it a suppressor they will lock your ass up if it meets their definition of a 'silencer' regardless of chosen semantics.

missed the “my”. you are correct in that case. in “my” state, we can’t have any fun. hint: it rhymes with “taxachussetts”.

Not a fan of the way the headline is written The gun hasn't been proven to be his. It could've very easily been planted when the police confiscated his bag.

You're right especially since they sprinkle "allegedly" throughout the article to cover their asses already.

Whilst I agree with the issues he was concerned about, I do not support his supposed actions but he should be treated fairly, innocent until proven guilty as we all have the right to.

However, having been on juries myself (in the UK), I know for sure that the justice system is deeply flawed and juries are heavily biased and bully each other into a result. The white woman is still good, the black man is still bad. Even if they don't say it out loud.

It is almost like the legal system isn't the arbiter of objective fact (which is what journalists endeavor to report).

Yes but if your facts are found to be wrong regarding elements of a crime you could lose everything and spend the rest of your life in an impossible to crawl out of financial hole (see Alex Jones or Ammon Bundy).

Therefore when discussing facts regarding a crime it is best to be vague rather than state it objectively.

Seems like it's a reason to verify facts and qualify them when you can't.

Luckily for Jones and Bundy, any misreported information was immaterial to their guilt/liability.

I think that was the point of this particular thread, that we don't appear to have any real confidence wired.com could verify this was Luigi's gun.

>any misreported information was immaterial to their guilt/liability.

In both cases they lost everything because it was found they misreported the facts of a crime or alleged crimes.

"Misreported" is certainly one way to phrase it.

I don't like the direction headlines have gone in recent years but this one isn't horrible.

That is, the headline doesn't make any assertions about the (alleged) murder, simply that he owned a ghost gun.

The article proved it was his gun (beyond my personal sense of reasonable doubt) by showing that he had practiced firing that specific weapon and was used to unique quirks that only that specific weapon would have (needing to tap the slide between shots)

I guess this only proves that the weapon is real, but thankfully my opinion isn't worth shit in a court of law.

There’s nothing special about clearing a failure-to-eject or a failure-to-feed, these are incredibly standard things to know and practice on a handgun.

You could hand a non-noob shooter any magazine bed semi-automatic handgun and get similar behavior.

this article doesn't attempt prove that luigi is the person who shot the gun, that he printed the gun, or that it was found in his backpack. just that the person in the video shot a 3D printed gun similar to the one police are alleging was in luigi's backpack.

https://archive.is/Khmoo

I know what printing ghost guns are. I know who Luigi Mangione is.

But I parsed this as "We 3D-Printed Luigi's Ghost Gun. It Was Legal."

I thought, why wouldn't Luigi's gun to zap ghosts from Luigi's Mansion be legal.

I believe you must write “alleged” otherwise it’s defamation. Can someone confirm this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com