They want the 3D printer industry to self-regulate. I'm pretty sure at least one person here predicted this a long time ago.
https://www.ammoland.com/2024/09/atf-an ... gun-parts/

With end users even writing their own firmware these days, I think blocking printing would be difficult.

Assuming manufacturers don't just cave, I could see the ATF implementing a _rule_ or Democrats passing a law while hiding behind safety, of course.

The real de facto message is to not get caught having done so. The wise manufacturer would make a serial number on a receiver or lower in order to not attract attention. I don't have a 3D printer, but if I did, I'd make wild and crazy plastic vehicles for my grand kids.

CDF

DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 12:28 pm They want the 3D printer industry to self-regulate. I'm pretty sure at least one person here predicted this a long time ago.
https://www.ammoland.com/2024/09/atf-an ... gun-parts/

With end users even writing their own firmware these days, I think blocking printing would be difficult.

Assuming manufacturers don't just cave, I could see the ATF implementing a _rule_ or Democrats passing a law while hiding behind safety, of course.

My guess is that "they" will simply make it so costly and convoluted to print contraband that only the most desperate will print illegal things. Most people want to be legal and up front.

VooDoo

VodoundaVinci wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 12:57 pm

DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 12:28 pm They want the 3D printer industry to self-regulate. I'm pretty sure at least one person here predicted this a long time ago.
https://www.ammoland.com/2024/09/atf-an ... gun-parts/

With end users even writing their own firmware these days, I think blocking printing would be difficult.

Assuming manufacturers don't just cave, I could see the ATF implementing a _rule_ or Democrats passing a law while hiding behind safety, of course.

My guess is that "they" will simply make it so costly and convoluted to print contraband that only the most desperate will print illegal things. Most people want to be legal and up front.

VooDoo

Perhaps true, but that would be a long way to go for very few parts that really are illegal. Unregulated parts and even receivers are not illegal to print--at least not federally or in free states.

ATF is under the direction of Biden's appointed director, after January 20th, 2025 there could be a new ATF director. And there could be court challenges even if the current director isn't replaced. I assume that ATF knows that any rules (regulations) they promulgate on 3D printed parts will be challenged in federal court, so they're asking for voluntary compliance. I think they're still smarting after their loss on the bump stocks case at SCOTUS.

DispositionMatrix wrote: Tue Sep 17, 2024 1:03 pm
.....Unregulated parts and even receivers are not illegal to print--at least not federally or in free states.

Yet. I continually forget I'm living in Illinois and what has happened here has not yet happened in Free States.

VooDoo

The problem here is if you aren't a prohibited person it is legal to make your own firearm. That's the starting point. So how it the 3D printer/software going to know that?

I also remind people that we have a very long (by USA standards) tradition of making our own firearms in this country. That is, in fact, exactly how Remington Arms Company got started, because Eli Remington first started making barrels, then started making the other parts. Same went for Sam Colt.

It is not illegal, in Free America at least, to make your own firearm. Matter of fact, that's something that we need to protect, vigorously, the right to make our own firearms. You can also do it now with modern, relatively inexpensive CNC milling machines; with these, you can make your own AR-15 lower out of a block of aluminum. The aluminum version would of course be preferable, due to greater strength, than the plastic 3D-printed version. Far as I'm concerned, the right to make our own firearms is just that, a right, not a privilege.

CowboyT wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2024 2:47 pm I also remind people that we have a very long (by USA standards) tradition of making our own firearms in this country. That is, in fact, exactly how Remington Arms Company got started, because Eli Remington first started making barrels, then started making the other parts. Same went for Sam Colt.

It is not illegal, in Free America at least, to make your own firearm. Matter of fact, that's something that we need to protect, vigorously, the right to make our own firearms. You can also do it now with modern, relatively inexpensive CNC milling machines; with these, you can make your own AR-15 lower out of a block of aluminum. The aluminum version would of course be preferable, due to greater strength, than the plastic 3D-printed version. Far as I'm concerned, the right to make our own firearms is just that, a right, not a privilege.

Agree, but always amazed to see others would rather only those established businesses can make arms.

Indeed. And how, pray tell, did those "established businesses" become "established" in their fields? Reminds me of how Apple Computer got started. Same with Hewlett-Packard. Same with Remington.

I know that you know this, BTW.

CowboyT wrote: Wed Sep 18, 2024 10:14 pm Indeed. And how, pray tell, did those "established businesses" become "established" in their fields? Reminds me of how Apple Computer got started. Same with Hewlett-Packard. Same with Remington.

I know that you know this, BTW.

Yeah, seem to recall garages being involved. LoL. Ability to make is fundamental to a society than wants to grow and develop. Limit it and you’re headed to the dustbin of history.

The reason I could see printer manufacturers caving on this easily is developers and product managers in tech typically are of the type who would be highly motivated to try to thwart the printing of anything even tangentially related to firearms. I've interacted with scores of tech workers who would jump at the chance to claim the mantle of righteousness associated, in their world, with hindering those who have the audacity to be interested in firearms.

DispositionMatrix wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2024 7:30 am The reason I could see printer manufacturers caving on this easily is developers and product managers in tech typically are of the type who would be highly motivated to try to thwart the printing of anything even tangentially related to firearms. I've interacted with scores of tech workers who would jump at the chance to claim the mantle of righteousness associated, in their world, with hindering those who have the audacity to be interested in firearms.

Agreed. I have two family members deeply involved in 3D printing in two very powerful and prominent industries and both are concerned that their advances, now being able to print in metals, ceramics, and polymers, will enable "Bad Guys" to print all kinds of things at home that should be left to "The Big Kids" and be unlawful for the general public, especially gun owners/aficionados, to print at will.

Stopping them and putting the safeguards in place is the problem and question as doing that will be difficult, time consuming, and expensive. But if the motivation to enable such restrictions is the alleged safety and peace for all, especially the children, then how many engineers or developers could set that aside for the rights of firearm owners?

VooDoo

What would be the downside of requiring a serial number on a printed receiver or what not? It would mean sending in that serial number, much like a 4473.

CDF

Because with that, you have a de-facto registry, and the government officials will know exactly who has a gun and who doesn't. Not good. I and others already have explained on several occasions why that's bad. Feel free to use the search function for this purpose.

I see no need to have a requirement even to print serial numbers on home-made guns, so, as long as you don't sell that gun to someone else. Federal law already requires that if you do, including in states where the face-to-face private transfer (i. e. without having to go through an FFL) remains legal, you put a serial number on it. So, it's already there; we don't need additional laws to that effect.

If I were the Feds, I'd assume everyone had a gun. Don't they?

For the record, I read that stuff and remain unafraid, unconcerned, and uninterested in fear as a motivator. "Ermagherd! 'They' might do something!"

It's not a bad idea. It's a way legally to pursue a hobby, if enough people write to Congress. If people don't want a legal avenue to do that, they'll just have to go ahead on with their bad selves, is all. Makes no never mind to me. If a person already has bought a gun legally, then "they" already know. Sheesh.

CDF

I'd back you up, CDF, because you're right, but having spent a (very expensive) week with Bob Rogers, I have no interest in this thread.

Ylatkit wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2024 11:47 pm I'd back you up, CDF, because you're right, but having spent a (very expensive) week with Bob Rogers, I have no interest in this thread.

Then why did you post in it? LOL

The second amendment is not about hobbies. It’s about the right to defend oneself.

Anyone can defend oneself with a commercially-bought gun. Those of us who make guns but do not sell them have a hobby.

CDF

The fallacy there is that you should have to go only to the "big companies" to buy a gun for self-defense, and that because you make guns and don't sell them, you have a "hobby", means your right to make those guns and use them, be it for recreation or self-defense or any other legal purpose, is somehow "lesser" than the big companies. So it's a "hobby". So what? That doesn't lessen the right to do it.

No one "has" to do anything. Gun ownership is voluntary, a choice. A single, legal gunsmith can make a gun for me, and I'll buy it. Bringing on the Straw Man of "big companies" makes me laugh. If I were to make a gun and sell it, it would need a serial number, same as if I had a gunsmith make one for me--which I have done. I see no problem there. I do see an uproariously weak argument, however. :-0 Sometimes it'll be that way.

CDF

Maybe mandate a warning sticker. You know, like the "do not touch the moving blade" on a chain saw.

sikacz wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:36 am The second amendment is not about hobbies. It’s about the right to defend oneself.

No. It's not.

Ylatkit wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 4:50 pm

sikacz wrote: Sat Sep 21, 2024 6:36 am The second amendment is not about hobbies. It’s about the right to defend oneself.

No. It's not.

There's an interesting passage on p.42 of _Gun Curious_. The whole chapter is quite remarkable, and that page itself is even better. But here is the brief passage I refer to: "In human societies today, the state claims--consensually or not--a monopoly on legitimate violence. This does not mean that only the state's violence is legitimate; it means the state gets to decide whose violence is legitimate. This often means restricting civilian ownership of coercive projectile weaponry. The US is an outlier in allowing its citizens --and the violence they embody--independent of the state" (42). The bolding is mine. By requiring serial numbers on guns, the state is deciding. The state is big, bigger than we are. And we'd better be glad we're following the laws. That is all. There's another section dealing with the idea some folks have about opposing the state with respect to this issue. Doing so in this area is not pretty. A man's got to know his limitations.

CDF