Hacker News Reader

Comment by bambax | Hacker News Reader

What does it mean to sell a machine the sole purpose of which is to exploit a "legal loophole"? Can't the machine be made illegal the minute it's available to the public?

You can't sell all the ingredients, tools and instructions to build a meth lab ("Breaking Bad in a Box"!) so what's so different with a gun?

View on HN

It is not exploiting a loop hole. Federal law allows for the building of guns in the privacy of ones home. Just because this individual has decided to use this to make a gun, does that mean that we should outlaw all 3d milling devices because some of them make guns?

People have been building 80% lowers for years, without any background check, as the ATF does not consider it to be a weapon. All one needs is a drill press. Should we outlaw drill presses because they can be used to make a gun less then 1% of the time. Despite all of the other uses of a drill press?

Also the difference between a gun and your meth example is that meth manufacturing is illegal in all capacities. The private manufacturing of a firearm is not considered illegal, as long as you do not sell that firearm that you have created.

Wrong analogy by far.

Owning and/or making your own "AR15 lower" is legal (your local jurisdiction may vary, but for point of discussion...). Meth 100% isn't.

The legal nuance addressed by this machine is: if you (as private individual, or as industry manufacturer) make an "AR15 lower" for sale, you must register the manufactured part with the government ... but if you make it for your own use (to wit: not for sale), you don't have to register it.

Those wanting "unregistered guns" could make an "AR15 lower" out of a block of steel, at home, for personal use, and be completely legal. YES, you can sell a CNC machine, block of steel[1], tools, and instructions to build a gun.

Surprise: guns are legal in the USA, and you're allowed to make one for yourself without registering it (some jurisdictional limitations may apply, but the general point is absolutely true).

[1] - Hobbyists strained the limits of what constitutes "make" and "block of steel" (what if it's cut to the exact outer dimensions? what if I drill a hole? how close to the final shape constitutes "not made"?); the government ruled that doing 80% of the work required to convert a block of steel into an "AR15 lower" was as far as you could go and the object still not legally considered an "AR15 lower" (any farther and it may be incomplete but close enough to be considered a gun). This machine takes an "80% AR15 lower" and finishes the work.

The regulations that make it impossible to sell a DIY meth lab also make kid's chemistry sets neutered pieces of crap.

Meth should be legal and sold out of liquor stores to anyone 21 or older anyway. And while I don't condone tweakers cooking it in the trailer park, I see no reason why one shouldn't be allowed to do that chemistry if they're careful and take proper precautions.

Meth is illegal, full stop. Guns are not, that "legal loophole" is referred to by others as the Constitution, which makes gun manufacturing subject to laws and regulations, but not bans in the US.

> ... the Constitution, which makes gun manufacturing subject to laws and regulations, but not bans in the US.

I don't know if this is actually true. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment, but its a bit of a stretch to say that includes manufacturing of arms.

So the government could ban the manufacture and importation of printers, printer parts, radio and TV transmitters, etc. etc., indirectly negating the rights of free speech and the press?

Nope, that's not how it works.

Well put. If Right X is a fundamental constitutional right, as the Second Amendment is according to the U.S. Supreme Court, then laws designed to restrict your ability to acquire the materials required to exercise Right X should be subjected to heightened scrutiny.

I'm not aware of a 2A case on point regarding firearm manufacturing (others may know more), perhaps because the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act offered sufficient protection. I am aware of a case on point regarding selling firearms. Earlier this year, Chicago's ban on selling firearms was ruled unconstitutional: http://www.volokh.com/2014/01/06/firearm-may-sold-acquired-o...

This makes sense if you think about it. The First Amendment right to freedom of the press wouldn't mean much if the Feds can levy a 10,000% tax on newsprint. Which is why the Supreme Court has held that such taxes violate the First Amendment: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vo...

Although back when the Supremes cared a lot less about the Constitution, or at least some rights, they allowed an ~ $3,500 tax in 2014 dollars for transfers of Machine Guns!!!, "Destructive Devices" and their ammo, etc. Handguns were also almost swept into this scheme, although maybe not at such a high, and inconveniently not inflation adjusted cost.

Meth is schedule II. I think "illegal, full stop" really only works for schedule I.

Oops! You're right, I was under the incorrect impression it had been put on Schedule I.

It's not an "AR-15 lower receiver maker". It's a cheap CNC mill you can do an infinite number of useful things with. Should high quality printers be illegal because you can make counterfeit bills with it? Or is the potential for harm an incidental part of any useful device? You can stab someone with a knife, but they're pretty handy for chopping food, too.

It is illegal to sell high quality printers that print currency, or at least sufficient pressure has been applied to printer makers so that their printers refuse to print currency.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sjm217/projects/currency/

I'm pretty sure that it's a matter of "sufficient pressure" and not legislation in this case, at least in most jurisdictions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com