Plans to create the world’s first open-source fully operational firearm – created on a 3D printer – have hit a slight snag with the news that the manufacturer that created the printer being used in the design process has seized the machine being used by the people behind the project, claiming that it is not willing to allow its hardware to be used for a project that violates federal firearms laws.
We reported on Defense Distributed’s Wiki Weapon project last week after it reached its $20,000 crowdfunding goal essentially solo, having been pushed out by IndieGoGo for, again, concerns surrounding the legality of actually creating a working gun via 3D printer with an aim of then releasing the plans online for free, so that anyone with access to 3D printing technology could, worryingly easily, create a firearm of their own. The project is the brainchild of one Cody Wilson, a law student from Texas who defended it in the abstract under the constitution’s right to bear arms – “People say you’re going to allow people to hurt people, well, that’s one of the sad realities of liberty. People abuse freedom, but that’s no excuse not to have these rights or to feel good about someone taking them away from you,” he said in response to criticism – but also admitted that there may be valid legal concerns about the project moving forward. “I haven’t felt any real heat yet, but I think it’s very possible the project might happen outside of America or the files might be hosted outside of America,” he’s said when asked about potential legal threats. “The point of manufacture might also have to be outside of the United States.”
Apparently, that point of design may need to be outside of the United States as well, following new developments.
Stratsys, the company that created the uPrint SE 3D printer being used by Defense Distributed in the creation of the prototype, has released a statement about its seizure of the equipment, saying that it acted after discovering that Defense Distributed didn’t have a firearm manufacturer license. “It is the policy of Stratasys not to knowingly allow its printers to be used for illegal purposes,” the company explained in a letter to Wilson himself. That’s a charge that Wilson denies, saying “Our intentions are not to break the law. This is America; I don’t need to register a thing.”
If that sounds a little over-the-top and defiant to you, Wilson can apparently back it up. He told the Guardian newspaper that he approached the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives about Wiki Weapon, and was told that there were no clear guidelines on whether or not a license was necessary. “Basically, the law has not anticipated this,” Wilson explained. “Current laws rely on conventional ideas of what a gun is.”
Wilson isn’t deterred by this latest setback, having applied for a manufacturer’s license, and started work on turning Defense Distributed into a company in the traditional sense. “We’ll get there,” he said of the project’s ultimate aim, “but I guess I’ve got to turn into a capitalist before it’s all said and done.”
Im curious as to how this 3D printing company has any legal right to just come in and take back the machines they built. Were the machines being leased instead of sold outright? Auto companies cant just come in and repossess your car if you get arrested for drunk driving, so how can this company steal this guys printers just because they think he “might” be breaking some nebulous law?
This story is SO overworked; the “prototype” spoken of here was the lower receiver, not the entire gun. Anyone remotely familiar with a gun knows that there is also the business end for an AR-15, that being the barrel and upper receiver (which houses the bolt and firing pin). Yeah, try printing i n plastic those parts and expect them to work. Sure, all of can be printed, but it will never fire a round – it’s just stupid to think it would work. It would be even dumber to volunteer to test a weapon with a plastic barrel or upper receiver.
On completing a working firearm; you’ll need a barrel and upper capable of containing the explosion and directing the bullet in the right direction – which means… either have a machine shop to finish the parts in metal or cannibalize an existing weapon – the latter of which…, why not just use or repair the source weapon.
Much ado about nothing, Stratasys is for one, over-reacting and for two, just playing CYA while trying to earn media points for being “responsible” – all the while knowing that this project has no real chance of succeeding with their device.
It could use smaller Easier to contain Rounds Such as .22 Bullets Which can do a lot of damage, Its not like people will be able to print 3D snipers and assassinate people, Unless it was a .22 round, Which wouldn’t be effective at longer ranges.
lol .22 that’s funny. I can swat a .22 away.
No, you can’t. .22 LR is easily lethal against unarmored targets.
So can a pellet gun…
Yes, that’s true. It’s also totally irrelevant. What you said was that you could swat a .22 LR away. You can’t. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.
And you clearly have no idea what sarcasm is. It’s a literature tool usually conveyed through irony or understatement. .22lr is a weak round no matter how you look at it. at 1,080 f/s (subsonic) to 1,600f/s, I’d rather have a .22-250 or my trusty .223/5.56 any day.
.22LR has no stoping power what so ever. Is it lethel? Yes. But only if you hit something in the right place. Otherwise, bone could stop it at moderate distances. I would venture to guess that at 20 feet a rib would be able to block it. .22LR are designed for “plinking” or small game. When I say small, I mean like rabbit or squirl. It has its place, but to call it lethal (for humans at range) is rather silly.
Although You would need to print new parts every Couple of clips Because even a .22 round could corrode and destroy the plastic used for the parts.
clips? In a magazine fed firearm, clips are not used. The only ones that use clips that comes to mind for me is the M1 and SKS. Hand guns, as well, do not use clips.
True, but this is the first step in getting there. It’s only a matter of time. Technology makes things easier for the masses.
There are actual 3D printers available that can print metal. They use a powdered metal that is combined with a binder, and the metal particles are “sintered” together in the same way as plastic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88BPmL8cGAo
That is to significant to tormenets all wipans or we can say human killer around the world, then men kinds can live without any tention we can save Community urbenise that is we can call it Development.
That is to significant to tormenets all wipans or we can say human killer around the world, then men kinds can live without any tention we can save Community urbenise that is we can call it Development.
It is perfectly legal for an individual to make a firearm without license or serial number. It is however untransferable and any attempt to sell is therefore illegal.
Nope, and this gun couldn’t fire more than one shot.. Even a pipe pistol would hold up better
Its the ability to print anything that should be the topic being debated, and what Stratsys accomplished with their seizure. If someone really wants to change the world and give power to the people, the technology that should be open-sourced is a 3D printer design.
It’s only a matter of time. You can’t regulate the people forever.
They should get a 3D Printer from Russia, China or Korea.
A GUN, isn’t any good without ammunition and I hardly would think that a 3D printer is capable of even producing a real live round of 5.56mm !
Next thing you’ll know, someone would be printing off a Nuclear Bomb and people would surely scream something but then again, I still don’t think that a 3D printer is capable of producing I235.
People can buy ammo easy.
The repossession aside, are regular guns hard to get or something?
And I definitely wouldn’t trust the carbine in this picture. No hand guards is a second degree burn just waiting to happen.
The one in the picture is not the one made… The one made was a lower receiver. Not a full upper/lower/barrel assembly.
Neat concept, but I wouldn’t trust a gun made from a printer.
That is to significant to tormenets all wipans or we can say human killer around the world, then men kinds can live without any tention we can save Community urbenise that is we can call it Development.
Wha the hell did you just say? Were you typing with marbles between your fingers?
Also, unless the manufacturer of the 3D printer actually still owns the machines, they legally can’t take them back, period. There are property ownership rights, and once you sell a physical product, it’s sold, not leased or rented. It doesn’t matter what the purchaser uses it for after the sale, the property is theirs at that point, NOT that of the company who makes it.
lease?
What the hell are talking about?
What on Earth are you trying to say Masood? lol
So awesome, this is good for removal of facial features.
This is a pretty interesting situation. I do think that they should be able to make these guns, however, you have to wonder what would happen if it was suddenly so easy to just “print” a gun and be free to do with it what you want. I know currently you can always buy a gun (at least in the US) but the process is a lot more painstaking and takes longer than just printing one in the comfort of your own home, I’d think
Not true. In the US you can legally purchase a Title 1 firearm from a private individual without any requirements for background checks or record keeping (some states may have stricter requirements). Way easier and faster than printing one.
Also, the following is from the ATF website. Not sure how the legality of this is being questioned at all.
Q: Does the GCA prohibit anyone from making a handgun, shotgun or rifle?
A: With certain exceptions a firearm may be made by a non-licensee provided it is not for sale and the maker is not prohibited from possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semi-automatic rifle or non-sporting shotgun from imported parts. In addition, the making of an NFA (read: machine gun, silencer, explosive device, etc.) firearm requires a tax payment and approval by ATF. An application to make a machine gun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing that the firearm is being made for a Federal or State agency.
[18 U.S.C. 922(o) and (r), 26 U.S.C. 5822, 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]