State Department Demands 3-D Gun Blueprints Be Removed | Hacker News Reader

State Department Demands 3-D Gun Blueprints Be Removed

techcrunch.com

83 pointsktavera106 comments

It is not that they don't understand how the internet works, but legally you cannot export blueprints about weapons without an export license. The State Department is absolutely correct. Blueprints of weapons cannot be exported. Everyone in the firearm/defense industry knows this.

The ITAR rules are even worse for some types of equipment. For example it is a felony to allow a foreigners (non-citizens or non-green card holders) to look through high-end (Gen III) night vision equipment. Guns shops all over the country unwittingly violate this rule every day. Technical discussions of night vision equipment on a forums accessible from foreigners is also illegal.

Edit: Also worth pointing out that those model files are also being hosted on GitHub [0]

[0] https://github.com/maduce/defcad-repo

> legally you cannot export blueprints about weapons without an export license.

Wow. That seems incredibly stupid. How did this manage to survive first amendment challenges? Or has it not been tested?

My knowledge is quite basic on the subject, but how would this be a first amendment issue?

How is censorship of speech a violation of freedom of speech? AYFKM

don't beg the question.

there's no need for cursing.

That is not what "beg the question" means. Begging the question refers to a form of argument in which the final conclusion was earlier presented as a given. That is, a circular argument.

I restated the question, to highlight the absurdity of it. That is not begging the question.

restating the thread:

steve19: 'legally you cannot export blueprints about weapons without an export license'

glenra: 'how did this manage to survive first amendment challenges?'

nness: 'how would this be a first amendment issue?'

in nness's comment, i am assuming 'this' is 'exporting blueprints about weapons without an export license'

in other words: 'how would exporting blueprints about weapons without an export license be a first amendment issue?'

you restated this as: 'how is censorship of speech a violation of freedom of speech?' first amendment issue very easily transforms to freedom of speech, but 'exporting blueprints about weapons' does not easily transform to 'censorship of speech'

nness question is essentially 'how does exporting weapon blueprints relate to freedom of speech?' it is not an absurd question.

you responded by equating 'exporting weapon blueprints' with 'censoring speech' with no argument, presupposing the conclusion from the question. ergo, begging the question.

Nobody doubts the shutdown is to prevent citizens from seeing the files, not foreigners. Ergo, censorship.

It's censorship either way.

In most contexts we interpret "speech" quite broadly. Speech is the transmission of information. Blueprints consist of information structured in a particular meticulous way which can be beautiful as well as practical and informative. Novels and paintings also fit that description. A painting could show how a bomb is constructed. A novel could explain how to commit a crime.

So I'm surprised public-domain blueprints aren't already considered "speech" as a matter of settled law. In the case of commercial blueprints I suppose I could imagine an argument for considering them "proprietary information", but in this case where the producer wants the information to get out and is not claiming copyright over it...posting a blueprint on the web is like posting a flyer on a telephone pole. It's a speech act. The federal government isn't generally allowed to prohibit speech acts.

> How did this manage to survive first amendment challenges?

This goes back to what Phil Zimmerman said about ITAR and such almost 20 years ago when they threw it at him for PGP:

"The Government has made it illegal in many cases to export good cryptographic technology, and that may include PGP. This is determined by volatile State Department policies, not fixed laws."

This has nothing to do with law and everything to do with those same volatile policies a generation later.

ITAR, like all US federal regulations codified in the CFR, have the full force and effect of the law. See the first couple paragraphs here for further explanation: http://library.law.unh.edu/AdminLaw

How do you know if something is subject to ITAR? The State Department has a big list. It's called the US Munitions List (USML). At the time Zimmerman said that, PGP probably wasn't on the list. But I assure you, blueprints of guns are absolutely on the list.

> At the time Zimmerman said that, PGP probably wasn't on the list.

It wasn't on the list yet, proving his point about volatility.

> full force and effect of the law.

All decrees, from Hammurabi onward, have the same qualities.

What's really funny is that 2d blueprints of the m16 and others exist and are readily accessible. Also, the army has published in the past various handbooks for insurrection. The "improvised munitions handbook" comes to mind.

The law's main reason for existing isn't really about handguns, but that doesn't stop it for being applied to them. I don't think the U.S. government is really all that concerned about a single shot pistol, but someone got all in a tizzy about it and decided that it should be shut down before it becomes a problem (not that I agree with that thinking).

These export controls primarily exist to keep our advanced military technology out of enemy hands. I am not a lawyer, but I am reasonably certain that these laws would be upheld by the courts. Even though the first amendment promises free speech, the Supreme Court has said that there are some things you still aren't allowed to say, like "Fire!" in a movie theater. Things that could harm public safety, such as distributing weapons plans, are not protected under the first amendment.

> Even though the first amendment promises free speech, the Supreme Court has said that there are some things you still aren't allowed to say, like "Fire!" in a movie theater. Things that could harm public safety, such as distributing weapons plans, are not protected under the first amendment.

The "clear and present danger" thing has not been true for many decades now. The current standard is if the speaker intends to cause imminent lawless behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

Of course the case where the "fire in a movie theater" thing first came up was about a war protester telling people that the draft was unconstitutional...

Thanks for filling me in, jlgreco. However, I still don't think any part of ITAR or AECA is going down because of this.

I was originally going to rage a bunch about the government here, but then I saw they were invoking ITAR, and I was like "yeah, okay, that is the one card they could've played that I wouldn't have complained about".

Then again, it's not like blueprints for single-shot infantry weapons are exactly the key to America's military supremacy, the loss of which will result in the final storming of our golden cities by barbarous hordes.

Were somebody to post up a mod of their RepRap fabbing an explosive lens or something, now that would be interesting to watch the banhammer on.

> Were somebody to post up a mod of their RepRap fabbing an explosive lens or something, now that would be interesting to watch the banhammer on.

I am not exactly sure what it is referring to, but the State Department's letter includes mention of a data file for a "125mm BK-14M high-explosive anti-tank warhead".

Maybe that is a model for a mold for warheads? I don't think anyone has a printer printing with high-explosives yet.

I'm not going to lie--if they did, that would be really cool.

What is an explosive lens? (TBH, I'd google it, but knowing how the US is becoming, I feel more comfortable voicing my curiosity here, where my intents are obvious, then via search where some automated tool could flag my curiosity as intent.

Not an expert here, but I believe it's the bit of a nuclear warhead that squashes the plutonium pit and causes it to go critical.

TIL the internet constitutes import/export from country to country.

Wow. According to the government's theories, I as a dual citizen of the USA and Canada am not allowed access to this stuff because for ITAR purposes I count as a Canadian national.

I wonder whether under the 14th they actually have the right to restrict my 2nd amendment rights in this way. That's in addition to the obvious 1st amendment issues.

(I somehow thought that the USA lost The USA vs the Progressive but Wikipedia corrected me that the case was dropped after it was obviously moot.)

Is that really the case? I'd heard that the US did not technically recognize dual citizenship but other nations do. So wouldn't you technically be just a US citizen as far as the US is concerned?

That is really the case. Under international law, all "dual citizen" means is that there are two countries whose national laws consider you a citizen. The USA used to have laws against retaining your citizenship if you took out another one, but they kept losing in the Supreme Court, so stopped trying to enforce them in 1990. (I took out Canadian citizenship less than 3 months after that policy change.)

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_R... that makes me a foreign national (despite also being a US citizen) which causes ITAR to apply to me.

Is this situation like crypto in the 90's where you just had to have an agreement stating you were a US citizen (or whatever), and a checkbox, then it was all ok, or do you have to actively verify they're a US citizen?

> The State Department is absolutely correct.

The State Department is legally correct and morally bankrupt. What a disgusting restriction on my first amendment rights.

Whatever I create or modify is my right to distribute as I see fit, regardless of what I created. Period. There's an absolute for you.

That would render any country with any sort of weapons/alcohol/drugs control "morally bankrupt". So either I misunderstand your comment, or you're a libertarian nutcase(1) trying to hijack this thread.

(1) for the easily insulted, i do not imply that all libertarians are nutcases, but rather that libertarian nutcases are nutcases.

> So either I misunderstand your comment, or you're a libertarian nutcase(1) trying to hijack this thread.

Nope, you didn't misunderstand. You're just a controlling jackass.

See? I can call people names too.

Why don't you try using your head and make a cogent argument for restricting an individual's right to create and distribute CAD files, hmm?

> Whatever I create or modify is my right to distribute as I see fit, regardless of what I created. Period. There's an absolute for you.

This is a silly thing to say. Especially in a thread about weapons. Especially to say so in an "absolute" way.

You absolutely don't have the right to distribute chemical, biological, nuclear, or even some conventional weapons. Nor should you. I'm drawn to this extreme list because of your "absolute" assertion.

Enforcing a stupid law doesn't make it any less stupid.

From what I have read of Cody, this is exactly the sort of reaction he was hoping to receive.

Perhaps he should have had the CAD file printed and bound as a book...

Edit: Nevermind, he's already ahead of me: "Wilson argues his activities are legit, because ITAR doesn’t apply to information sold in a library, and conveniently has his being sold in an undisclosed Austin, Texas, bookstore."

Also the reaction expected from anyone who understands that the state will do anything to protect its hegemony, regardless of whether its actions will actually be effective or not (as many citizens in many countries know all too well what they get away with on a daily basis despite or in ignorance of written laws). With predictable actors, it's hard not make it work to one's advantage.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/itar/p120.htm#P120

Let's break it down,

ITAR defines export as transferring an article or technical data (§ 120.7).

Technical data, by definition, is not in the public domain (§ 120.10.5).

DEFCAD claims the files are in the public domain, i.e., available in bookstores (§ 120.11.1) and libraries open to the public (§ 120.11.4). So they cannot qualify as technical data to satisfy the export requirement.

I would like them to see the Streisand Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

By issuing a takedown notice to the maintainer of the blueprint, it's very unlikely that they're going to stop the flow of information. Additionally, it turns out it's probably not effective to stop them from distributing the blueprints now that they're already on the internet.

We're probably not going to see a massive number of these come into existence because the printers aren't exactly a commodity yet. I imagine the people who own these printers, and the printing services will notice what's being printed, and that's probably the best place to control these.

I see your Streisand and raise you one Darknet...

"The idea of the darknet is based upon three assumptions:

1) Any widely distributed object will be available to a fraction of users in a form that permits copying.

2) Users will copy objects if it is possible and interesting to do so.

3) Users are connected by high-bandwidth channels.

The darknet is the distribution network that emerges from the injection of objects according to assumption 1 and the distribution of those objects according to assumptions 2 and 3."

See "The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution" - http://msl1.mit.edu/ESD10/docs/darknet5.pdf

I doubt the general effectiveness of the Streisand effect, since it seems like exactly the kind of thing that would be subject to selection bias: the examples of people trying to stop the spread of information that you know of are of course mainly those where it failed. That you can name many more examples of it failing doesn't mean that there aren't lots of examples of it working that you have no way of knowing about.

3D guns are 99% useless, but 101% provocative in the current political environment.

There are 350 million real, fully functional, STEEL barreled firearms in the US today.

The epitome of 750 years of tweaks and improvements.

SURELY one of those would be easier to obtain (and safer to fire)if you wanted a gun.

If the gun is a one-shot gun, could the gun not include a bullet also, as well as a receptacle for gunpowder? Could a 100% plastic gun with plastic bullet be lethal up close? Could one place the gunpowder during printing and seal it? Could the gunpowder be ignited by static electricity for firing the gun? Answer these questions and metal detectors become useless.

There is the possibility of manufacturing caseless ammo.

An exotic replacement for the firing pin isn't strictly necessary. A firing pin is too small to activate a metal detector. At least, the government thinks so, because guns are required to contain a minimum amount of metal for this purpose.

The current stories are neglecting to mention this, but an earlier Forbes article reported that the Liberator contains a 6 ounce piece of steel to remain compliant with the law on undetectable firearms.

this assumes the law in the US, but there are many other countries, assuming one would want to stay within the law as well.

So, this attracts the ire of the state department. Yet, something like this (http://aresarmor.com/store/Item/TACMHL15) is actually approved by the ATF as not being a firearm. You just need some basic machining skills (thanks MIT OpenCourseWare) and access to basic tools (thanks local hackerspace) to have a fully operational AR-15 which does not need to be registered.

Seriously?

Why should the law make sense? It's a bunch of arbitrary rules put in place via largely reactionary pressure.

If you don't refactor code occasionally you end up with weird corner cases that don't make any sense. The laws of our nation haven't been refactored in any substantial way, ever. It's patches all the way down to the Constitution.

Half-baked, untested production patches at that.

Exactly. And that's the point and design. With a convoluted system in place, seemingly peaceful activities can land you in prison, or bankrupt you with legal fees. I only see the entropy accelerating.

Yep and it'll destroy the American empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Tainter#Social_complexit...

"You just need some basic machining skills (thanks MIT OpenCourseWare)"

I wish I could learn this kind of stuff from OCW. There's some text descriptions of how lathes and milling machine work in one of their courses (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-670-mech...), but not enough to make me comfortable with either tool.

I've been looking for a place around my city (Toronto) where I could take a weekend or evening classes about machining skills, but haven't had much luck. So, I think you're underestimating the difficultly of getting basic machining skills in our post-industrial society. Though I agree with your main point.

Here's a start from MIT: http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/ehs-videos/videos

I'm nothing close to a lawyer, but I bet the people you linked to would indeed get in trouble if they started shipping their parts overseas.

The law (ITAR[1] and the Arms Control Export Act[2]) wasn't designed to keep home-milled ArmaLite parts out of the hands of US citizens. The goal was to prevent someone like Lockheed from doing something like selling stealth fighters to an adversary without checking in with someone first. It's basically written as banning the export of military technology to foreign countries without the proper paperwork.

Apparently, to the folks at the State Department, stuff like PGP[3] and plans for a 3D-printable gun count as "military technology" and putting it on the internet counts as "export". That's pretty different from the ATF deciding that a lower receiver without holes in it doesn't need a firearms dealer for a transfer.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Export_Control_Act

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Traffic_in_Arms_R...

[3] http://stason.org/TULARC/security/pgp/99-Appendix-VI-A-State...

I'm interested on the PGP stuff with Zimmerman. If I encrypt a file using PGP and send it to a friend in Europe, would this act be in violation of ITAR or AECA?

If it is a violation, then how has HTTPS not been challenged?

There's no problem sending encrypted data internationally. The "munition" is the code/program that does the encryption.

Export controls on crypto were relaxed in the late 90s (I'd have to look up the exact dates), and before then there were "export" versions of Netscape Navigator that only supported 40 bit keys.

True, but 3D plans for the AR-15 are also easy to find online. Which, I suppose, is a point I should have included.

Who'da thunk it, the Pirate Bay now has a Physibles category! Can anyone guess which files are currently trending?

https://thepiratebay.sx/search/defcad/0/99/0

1391 seeds, 109 peers at time of writing

Would a US citizen seeding this file to a foreign peer potentially violate export rules and be at risk of major legal trouble if the US gov went down that road?

Absolutely yes this is a risk. Do not do this. The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is not something you want to mess with.

Yeah, no idea why you're being downvoted--you make a fair point.

Like, this is annoying, but all of the secondary actors seeding and whatnot here are provably and knowingly infringing on ITAR.

I don't agree with what's being done by the .gov here, and I don't think it's a good thing, but especially given how we see the courts behave and how we see the confrontational system run, I must remind our overzealous peers here who wish to antagonize the .gov:

Do not taunt happy fun ball.

Heh, after the defcad files there's "Guy Fawkes and Anonymous mask".

Dear State Department:

How well has trying to remove content from the Internet worked out for you in past?

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Thanks,

Mindcrime

jinx!

While I'm not super excited about people printing 3D guns, it seems like it's probably still cheaper to buy an illegal gun than it is to buy a 3D printer with the material to print a functioning firearm (last I checked 3D printers were still ~$500+; and even legal guns can be as cheap as ~$100)... I'm not sure that this publicized letter helps the situation any. There is the interesting topic of "gun legislation" as well... once any individual can manufacture Thing X, how do you (or do you?) legislate control of it?

It would be great if the first major, widespread, TPB-distributed 3D printed-thing was something less controversial, but such is life. There are people in jail for "hacking" and a huge variety of other issues, while one can apparently print guns without any legal ramifications. I am not saying that one is better or worse than the other - just drawing attention to how poor our legislative process is when it comes to handling _any_ technological advances whatsoever.

The question might be more about marginal cost. What would it cost a militia to outfit themselves with a thousand illegal guns, versus the material and power to print a thousand guns? If printing is cheaper, how much more likely does this make the creation of militias?

I would much rather there be no 3D-gun-printing situation... but I'm not sure that I'm too concerned about militias, albeit only given the current state of 3D printers. There's a weird race between the capacity to manufacture anything at any time, and the ability to harvest sufficient energy to make the former not-so-important... and the former is in front right now. That is for sure a kind of scary thought. Plastic-gun-toting militias are probably not a big deal right now, but yeah... what if 3D metal printers become as prevalent as mobile phones? Hopefully some balancing technology will have also become so prevalent. If not, there are companies that make amazing tents, and there are lots of mountains and woods... :)

If you're a militia, you're going to purchase a laser sintering printer. What then? Restrict the purchase of metal powder?

Of course the short hairs here are that Cody has an FFL and they can revoke that in a heartbeat for pretty much any reason. Way back in the cypherpunk days (when 'strong' crypto was a weapon) there was a thought experiment to have someone cross into the US illegally, then tattoo on their skin the code that implemented the RSA algorithm, and then turn themselves in to be deported, thus inducing a violation by the INS. I don't think it went anywhere, the other idea was a billboard in the US with the code on it you could read while standing in Mexico (this would work for Canada as well).

But poking fun aside, much of the same issues that arose with that effort are in this new 'threat'. The key here is the 3D printer, next up they will be a restricted export item like really nice machine tools.

Nowadays you could paint the algorithm on the side of a wall near a road and wait for Google streetview to pick it up or paint it really big on a paved area and wait for Google Earth to pick it up.

This is the beginning of a much longer roller coaster. It opens the door to a public demand for more surveillance, and debate over what kinds of data are allowed to exist.

It would be easy enough to set up a server to block non-US IPs.

Would that be sufficient to get around ITAR? I wonder what would happen then

No. There are plenty of Non-US Persons (people without greencards or citizenship) in the U.S. and IP is not adequate identification anyway.

You're right. Luckily, the porn industry already has this covered.

    ARE YOU A US CITIZEN?

    [YES] [NO]

As colechristensen said, IP is not adequate identification. Anyone with time to kill can proxy themselves into a US IP.

There is no formal list of procedures you need to protect ITAR information. You need to use something like "standard security procedures" to keep the information away from foreigners.

What this means in practice is you consult your organizations lawyers, draft a policy, and follow it to the letter so you don't go to jail. You personally are liable (jail time and fines) if the information leaks out. Having an approved policy that you are following is really the only protection.

Why would anyone respond to a request from the State Department to remove plans for a 3-D gun? What jurisdictional claim and standing does SD have here? I see none.

And this is an old technology firearm created with a new technology printing device. Plans for firearms are all over the internet. What makes this one fall under SD rule?

I will be lazy and ask here instead of looking it up: Is the barrel 3D-printed too? Out of what material? I'm having trouble accepting the idea that a 3D-printed barrel can withstand the pressure of firing normal ammunition.

> Is the barrel 3D-printed too? Out of what material?

Yes, and plastic. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drPz6n6UXQY

Yup, barrel is printed as well. Entire gun is ABS plastic, which sounds absurd until you realize that it's only a .22 being fired through it, and it's only intended to be used for one shot. This round is so weak that it's explosive charge is comparable to the primer charge on other rounds.

Only two things aren't printed, the firing pin (which is a nail), and an additional hunk of metal that goes in it so it will be detectable with a metal detector (there are other laws against "stealth" weapons that have no metal in them).

I was going to say, I think the last place I read about plastic firearms was in a Robert Ludlum novel (spy-thriller type stuff). Though if the "additional hunk of metal" is optional and included for plausible legality, I can see there being some political blowback regardless.

Yeah, If you have any experience with creating your own 3D CAD files for printing it would be trivial to go into files yourself and fill in the void for the metal. I doubt it would have a significant impact on the gun's performance. While I can't see this particular model being used as as spy weapon, the potential is certainly there as the technology improves.

In other news, the State Department has absolutely no idea how the internet works.

This is an issue of disruption that can cause a large, politically entrenched gun market to fail being disguised as a gun control issue.

What steps need to be taken so that we can legally possess a 3D printed gun?

> What steps need to be taken so that we can legally possess a 3D printed gun?

None. It's perfectly legal in all states at the moment.

What we need to do is protect the status quo. There are clowns in New York and at the federal level who are already talking about banning 3D printed guns.

Has ITAR been challenged under the 1st Amendment?

Streisand effect... bad move State, bad move.

This reminds me of cryptography export in the 1990s. The government's case did not hold up in court and now you can write as much as you want about cryptography.

This xkcd seems appropriate: http://xkcd.com/504/

Well, the State Department can go <bold>fuck</bold> themselves.

people will likely be able to cheaply manufacture guns on private property very soon.

is this a problem?

This isn't a problem, and it isn't a new thing either:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm

do you think 3d printers will not significantly reduce the complexity of creating a firearm for the average citizen?

I would wager that right now, in the US, there are more people that know how to use CNC machines and have access to one than people who know how to use 3d printers and have access to one. Consider that damn near every mid-sized shop these days has a CNC machine, while 3d printers are still very much a hobbyist's toy (your regular Joe can always pop down to the local hackerspace to get access to one, but I doubt many hackerspaces would be amused at regular Joe printing out his own Liberator. I would expect to see more leeway given to people who work in shops with CNC machines though, mostly due to the lower visibility).

With any luck 3d printers will become more ubiquitous in the next few years, and this will all clearly be no longer the case.

No.

3d printers that people can afford can only produce garbage guns. 3d printers that professionals use (i.e., that cost tends of thousands of dollars) can produce slightly less crappy guns. In either case, you end up with a product that is substantially lower quality that mass-manufactured equivalents and costs substantially more.

What kind of idiot would pay more money for a lower quality product that could easily blow up in your hand severely injuring you? I mean, it is not like there's a shortage of mass-manufactured firearms.

I can purchase a laser sintering printer that can print 3D metal objects for a few thousand dollars. I would argue this is a low enough price point that your average person could afford it. I could also print a gun with a laser sinter, that while not as smooth and refined as a cast weapon, will still fire.

Sure, ABS plastic weapons are still somewhat laughable. What happens when you can print a metal gun in your own home with some metal powder, with a machine purchased for less than $1K?

Note: Boeing uses laser sintered parts in their new Dreamliner; this isn't just for prototyping.

EDIT: Make Magazine plans for an open source laser sintering device: http://blog.makezine.com/2012/02/01/an-open-source-laser-sin...

"What happens when you can print a metal gun in your own home with some metal powder, with a machine purchased for less than $1K?"

What happens when I buy an eight-round Mossberg from the pawn shop for $250 dollars (that is like 8 Rasberry Pis!)?

Odds are, same outcome: it sits around doing nothing, because nearly nobody is murderer just itching for an easy way to do it.

I wasn't arguing that manufacturing tech turns people into murderers. I was arguing that the cost of rapid prototyping/manufacturing tech is dropping extremely rapidly, and to attempt to regulate it will be a fool's errand.

SLS fabricators don't actually produce equivalent quality to real guns. Real guns are made with precision machined metal components that are extremely strong. SLS "guns" are made with tiny bits of metal and binder fused at much lower temperatures than metal forging and thus have much weaker bonds. You can't really compare the two.

I think we can agree that the bonds of an SLS gun are going to be stronger than that of an ABS plastic printed gun.

It's already really simple, and has been since time out of mind?

Anyways, no, I don't think that it will make a huge difference--the materials in use and the resolution in printing is just comical compared to even a simple throwaway zipgun.

why did someone downvote this?

it's literally a one liner question, and some intelligent responses were posted as a result.

im baffled.

Why is creation of a firearm a relevant concern? Is there anybody who really wants a gun who somehow can't manage to acquire one?

The average citizen who wants a gun has one. And they have one that is much more effective than this 3D printed gun.

They already can. It has been possible and within reach for anyone who ever took a real shop class for as long as you can imagine. Not only is it possible, but it is in fact done in practice. A particularly famous example (of many): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass_Copy

People are losing their marbles over this particular gun because it was put out there with the intention of being provocative. People fear what they are told to fear.

Improvised guns are a problem in China also, but it is also one of those crimes with an often applied death penalty.

I don't see 3D printing changing the situation very much, as the capability already exists and is harshly regulated.

This is possible already on a on a larger, better quality scale.

You can legally make and own unregistered/unserialized AR-15s or other firearms as long as it’s for personal use; you can’t sell, gift or distribute them in anyway. It’s easier and more economical (for now) to buy a BATF compliant 80% finished AR-15 lower receiver then drill/machine the last 20%. You’d have a commercial quality firearm. I think it would be a lot easier to get your hands on a drill, jig and mill than a high quality 3D printer too. There are even build parties where a group of people bring/buy their unfinished lowers and an experienced machinist helps the group finish their firearms.

Again, these guns are unregistered (not in any database) and have no serial number (unless you decide to stamp it with an ID mark in case it gets stolen). There's also no record of the 80% lower sale because its unfinished and not considered a firearm yet.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html: “For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.”

Correct, but you actually can sell them as long as they are not manufactured with the intent to sell. So you can't make a lower, take it to the range for a day and immediately sell it, but if you have one that is several years old it's probably fine to sell it or give it as a gift.

And my understanding is that it is generally considered a good idea to add a serial number, even if it's not legally required. It can make interactions with law enforcement easier if they're not aware of all these details.

I think everyone is failing to point out the sheer futility of this action based on the most fundamental of human traits: Our ability to solve problems creatively and make things.

I would be utterly stunned if 75% to 95% of mechanical engineers --anywhere in the world-- could not, given the task, design such a gun from scratch. I am not a mechanical engineer and I am 100% confident I could, if interested enough, do a good job of it (I rock at Solidworks and CNC).

This is one of those "you can't un-ring a bell" moments. The design is out and tons of people could design it all over again from first principles. Not sure what the government accomplished other than to make these files --and the general idea of a 3D printed gun-- really popular overnight.

I'd be more concerned about recently stolen state-of-the-art technology taking an early one-way flight westward on a thumb drive than I'd be about a plastic single-shot gun (that apparently isn't even stable; from what I've heard the thing has exploded before in testing). As others have said, producing weapons independently has been happening for ages; the processes and technology for pushing pieces of metal out of tubes at high speeds aren't overly complicated. Unregistered guns are still obtainable even if you can't hack one together yourself.

But this isn't the first time ITAR has been abused. Can you say strong cryptography?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com