Legality of 3D printing gun parts and having them shipped

[nofishbob]

Transferring a data file that describes a gun, whether it is electronic instructions for a 3-D printer or a conventional blueprint does not constitute a firearm transfer, nor can I see how it ever will. A data file is just a detailed description of a firearm.

The firearm still has to be made, that is, to enter the physical world from the electronic realm. The location where that happens, whether on a 3-D printer, a futuristic "replicator" or by a craftsman with hand tools is the place where "manufacturing" occurs.

You can't shoot a data file!

Bob

 

[gfanikf]

Transferring a data file that describes a gun, whether it is electronic instructions for a 3-D printer or a conventional blueprint does not constitute a firearm transfer, nor can I see how it ever will. A data file is just a detailed description of a firearm.

The firearm still has to be made, that is, to enter the physical world from the electronic realm. The location where that happens, whether on a 3-D printer, a futuristic "replicator" or by a craftsman with hand tools is the place where "manufacturing" occurs.

You can't shoot a data file!

Bob

However, the data file is a vital part of the manufacturing process, without it, you can't build the gun, especially with the build instructions encoded with in it. Now you could make a good argument if it's say the gun minus the lower receiver, frame, action, whatever constitutes the gun, I think you have a far more valid claim.

The only difference from normal hard goods is it being a digital download purchase (which as a former NY resident are taxed and regulated fairly easily) say an ebook file (which needs some electronic device to function or play) vs a hard copy book (a hard good already made and with no need for anything else to function).

You can read an ebook without an ereader device or software!

Even if it wasn't, it's still interstate commerce, which gives Congress control over it. Besides as this hurts large manufactures and gun stores, you can be sure few trade groups will queue up to prevent this being added to the GCA.

 

[Sam1911]

Sam, definitely correct about being able to sell it. I thought you had to put a marking on it to sell it..

Now you've stumbled upon one of the little games the ATF likes to play. If you read the FAQ that covers making a gun for your own use, and selling a homemade gun, they tell you that you should (not MUST) put a serial number on it before you sell it. However, the law does not actually require one. The only guns you may build for your own use that you MUST serialize are NFA Title II weapons like SBRs and SBSs.

 

[gfanikf]

Now you've stumbled upon one of the little games the ATF likes to play. If you read the FAQ that covers making a gun for your own use, and selling a homemade gun, they tell you that you should (not MUST) put a serial number on it before you sell it. However, the law does not actually require one. The only guns you may build for your own use that you MUST serialize are NFA Title II weapons like SBRs and SBSs.

But who wants to be the person stopped with a non-serialized gun, but built from mass-use plans that was downloaded, how long before a ruling states that unless the file and building instructions were made by the person, it's not a self made firearm?

 

[Sam1911]

But who wants to be the person stopped with a non-serialized gun, but built from mass-use plans that was downloaded,

Could be an issue, but in the end it is either illegal or it is NOT illegal. Folks get hassled for things that are NOT illegal occasionally, but how is this that much different from running around with an AK built on a receiver "flat" in your garage?

how long before a ruling states that unless the file and building instructions were made by the person, it's not a self made firearm?

Well, the technology has to exist first. Then...who knows? That would go to the Supreme Court I'm sure as it would be radically redefining WHAT a firearm IS. A firearm is defined very specifically in the US Code. That text doesn't say anything at all about plans, blueprints, e-files, or anything else that might be necessary to MAKE a firearm. If it can't fire a projectile, itself, it isn't a firearm. (Unless it is a silencer...)

 

[nofishbob]

However, the data file is a vital part of the manufacturing process, without it, you can't build the gun, especially with the build instructions encoded with in it. Now you could make a good argument if it's say the gun minus the lower receiver, frame, action, whatever constitutes the gun, I think you have a far more valid claim.

The only difference from normal hard goods is it being a digital download purchase (which as a former NY resident are taxed and regulated fairly easily) say an ebook file (which needs some electronic device to function or play) vs a hard copy book (a hard good already made and with no need for anything else to function).

You can read an ebook without an ereader device or software!

Even if it wasn't, it's still interstate commerce, which gives Congress control over it. Besides as this hurts large manufactures and gun stores, you can be sure few trade groups will queue up to prevent this being added to the GCA.

The e-book vs. firearm data file analogy fails in my opinion because you can read the e-book without actually making a physical book. An e-book functions in the digital realm as an equivalent to a printed book.

A file describing a firearm cannot be said to function in any way as a firearm without actually MAKING the firearm. it does not function as a firearm in the digital realm.

How would this be any different than buying printed plans for a gun via the mail....no transfer is required for these plans because the plans cannot function as a gun without actually fabricating the gun described.

Bob

 

[gfanikf]

Could be an issue, but in the end it is either illegal or it is NOT illegal. Folks get hassled for things that are NOT illegal occasionally, but how is this that much different from running around with an AK built on a receiver "flat" in your garage?

That's true and it's mostly qualified on what I said next.

Well, the technology has to exist first. Then...who knows? That would go to the Supreme Court I'm sure as it would be radically redefining WHAT a firearm IS. A firearm is defined very specifically in the US Code. That text doesn't say anything at all about plans, blueprints, e-files, or anything else that might be necessary to MAKE a firearm. If it can't fire a projectile, itself, it isn't a firearm. (Unless it is a silencer...)

I wouldn't doubt that, but I could just as easily see the code changed to head that off (as I mentioned before), just like with a silencer. That said I would suspect something to occur administratively first, mostly with needing an FFL to use the printer (along the reasoning that it's only for mass duplication).

Keep in mind this is as you point out hypothetical, and mostly just a lawyer enjoying a look at potential issues. In the end I suspect that commercial sales or mass use will be regulated as a natural byproduct of the technology and how gun sales are currently handled and business/trade reasons.

How would this be any different than buying printed plans for a gun via the mail....no transfer is required for these plans because the plans cannot function as a gun without actually fabricating the gun described.

Bob

You could build a gun without printed instructions, you can't print a gun without the encoded instructions...or creating your own instructions (which would fall under the exception already allowed for self manufacture). One creation is dependent on the other, the other is not.

Don't get me wrong I'd love to have a point one day where I can download a "Public Domain" file and print out an MP5, this is all just an outgrowth of being a lawyer and love of debate (and trying to argue the other side)

Just my feeling that you'll likely see an administrative restriction, leading to a court case, or just a general change in the law (though it doesn't change potential liability or IP issue), but like I said I'd love Ctrl-P MP5.

 

[brickeyee]

I wouldn't doubt that, but I could just as easily see the code changed to head that off

It is already illegal to make a gun (as defined in the law) for sale without licensing.

The law does not care how you make it.

You could take a file to a block of metal.

The law defines WHAT a regulated gun is, not how it is made.

Make one for sale and sell it without a license and you can get in trouble.

New methods of making the fun do not matter.

 

[The Wiry Irishman]

Metal parts can now be printed. They're sufficiently strong for many functioning parts but I don't know of the technology is advanced enough to make parts that are strong enough to use as a functioning bolt-action rifle receiver or firearm barrel yet.

DMLS (Direct Metal Laser Sintering) is starting to get close, but not the point where I'd want to use it for high stress parts (barrel/chamber) or high-hardness parts (hammer/sear). However, NASA has developed and started a licensing an addative manufacturing technology called Electron Beam Freeform Fabrication (link) that uses wire stock instead of powder and under tightly controlled conditions can produce single-crystal parts, and with further development has the potential to create parts with mono-molecular precision. While cripplingly expensive now, when this technology becomes more affordable in a decade or so, look for it to change the firearms manufacturing world completely. For no more than bargain bin barrel you could buy now, imagine being able to get a single-crystal barrel that can handle insane pressures with mono-molecular precise rifling and bore trueness that has none of the stresses associate with the cut rifling process - better-than-benchrest accuracy for eastern bloc import prices.

 

[fatcat4620]

Along this subject check out this guys work.
http://www.cncguns.com/projects/ar15lower.html

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

People have made AR 15 lowers out of wood before, I'd imagine that it could be done with these printers.

 

[JohnKSa]

I believe that transferring a program (or programs) for a CNC machine that would create firearm parts would be identical to transferring a program (or programs) for a 3D printer that would create firearm parts.

The previous capability has existed for years--the only difference is that it might take a bit more expertise to run a CNC machine than to run a 3D printer.

I don't see how either one could be considered legally identical to transferring actual parts themselves.

If you think about it, both are really the same thing as transferring plans to a machinist.

1. Machine readable plans are transferred to a 3D printer that creates the part(s).
2. Machine readable plans are transferred to a CNC machine that creates the part(s).
3. Human readable plans are transferred to a human machinist who creates the part(s).

In all situations the parts themselves do not change hands because they do not exist at the time of the "transfer".

In all situations you need raw materials already at the destination location to actually create the parts. Printer (3D "toner") CNC (metal) Machinist (metal).

In all situations you need equipment already at the destination location to actually create the parts. Printer (3D printer) CNC (CNC machine) Machinist (Machining tools).

In all situations you need someone to set up/use the equipment although a 3D printer is probably easier to set up & use than the other two.

 

[Owen]

Transferring a data file that describes a gun, whether it is electronic instructions for a 3-D printer or a conventional blueprint

However, transferring that file out of the United States would be an ITAR violation without the proper documentation from the the State Department.