Pa. officials block access to 3D-printed gun files, seek national injunction

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: KYW1060



PHILADELPHIA (KYW Newsradio) -- There's been growing concern after a Texas-based company announced they had plans to release files over the Internet that would allow 3-D printer users to create their own real life guns. Now, state officials say they have successfully blocked the release of the gun specs to anyone in the Keystone State, and will be aiming for nation-wide injunction.

In a press release, officials say an emergency hearing in federal court was called, and an agreement has been struck between the state of Pennsylvania and Defense Distributed, the company seeking to distribute downloadable gun files. Officials say, Defense Distributed has agreed to make its sites inaccessible to PA users, as well as not uploading any new 3-D gun files.

"Once these untraceable guns are on our streets, in our schools we can never get them back, so we sued to stop them from being able to do this," Attorney General Josh Shapiro tells KYW Newsradio.

The Pennsylvania's lawsuit states that Defense Distributed is seeking to bypass the established legal requirements by instantaneously delivering real, operational firearms to anyone in PA with an internet connection and a 3D printer, officials say. "The threat of untraceable guns in the hands of unknown owners is too daunting to stand by and not take action," said Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf.

Read more: https://kywnewsradio.radio.com/articles/news/pa-officials-block-access-3d-printed-gun-files-seek-national-injunction

---

Just heard this on the radio early this morning. PA AG attempting to get a nationwide injunction and will file this morning. Tweet -

Link to tweet

TEXT

AG Josh Shapiro
✔
@PAAttorneyGen
· 7h
Replying to @PAAttorneyGen

PA lawmakers have spent decades carefully crafting our gun laws. They've imposed rules about background checks, age restrictions, the licensing process, etc. This would bypass all of that - and once they are out on the streets of PA, we'll never get them back.

AG Josh Shapiro
✔
@PAAttorneyGen

.@GovernorTomWolf, @PAStatePolice & I understand this, we know what's at stake, and we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that people can't just print a deadly weapon on a whim. pic.twitter.com/B2iCY1RsjP
9:30 PM - Jul 29, 2018

A well-regulated Militia...

[NutmegYankee]

1. Distribution of information is a First Amendment issue.

This is prior restraint, and ultimately it will fail in court. Not to mention that unlike China there is no national firewall/filter. Once the files go out, they will be reposted to new sites.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. The key at some point might be this

Obama Signs Bill to Extend Ban on Plastic Guns
President Obama on Monday signed a bill that extends the ban on plastic firearms for another 10 years.

By Chloe Albanesius
December 10, 2013 2:50PM EST

President Obama on Monday signed a bill that extends the ban on plastic firearms for another 10 years. The president signed the Undetectable Firearms Act extension last night, just hours before it was set to expire. According to Huffington Post reporter Jennifer Bendery, the president - who was in South Africa for Nelson Mandela's memorial service - signed the bill using an "autopen," which allows for remote approval of legislation.

The bill outlaws the manufacture, import, selling, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or reception of any firearm that is not detectable by walk-through metal detectors, or has major components that do not generate an accurate image by airport X-ray machines.

The issue made headlines in the last year or two amidst the rise of 3D printers, which some enthusiasts have used to print plastic guns.

Leading the charge was non-profit group Defense Distributed, which launched Defcad, known as the Pirate Bay of 3D printing. Cody Wilson, University of Texas student and Defense Distributed founder, raised $20,000 in a grassroots online campaign to lease a Stratasys uPrint SE, but when word of his plans to print guns got out, the company showed up at his house to pick it up. Later, the State Department forced Defcad to remove its 3D-printable gun files because they violated International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2428186,00.asp

Interesting paper (PDF) about this here -

Should Government Regulate Illicit Uses of 3D Printing?
BY DANIEL CASTRO

MAY 2013
<...>

POLICY OPTIONS
There are three levels at which government could try to regulate 3D printing: the printed items, the information, and the 3D printers.

First, government can regulate the final 3D-printed products. For example, the government could restrict possession of 3D-printed guns or ammunition. We already have some laws like this in place. The Undetectable Firearms Act, passed in 1988, prohibits gun makers from manufacturing guns that cannot be detected by metal detectors and x-ray machines. This legislation has been extended once, but is set to expire in December 2013.(6) In addition to calling for reauthorization of the ban, lawmakers have proposed legislation to explicitly outlaw the production of such weapons in the home(7). In January of this year, New York Congressman Steve Israel (D-NY) called for new legislation to prohibit consumers from using 3D printing to make high capacity magazines and guns.(8) This type of approach has precedent as laws already restrict ownership of certain types of goods. As with similar efforts to prohibit individual behavior, such as growing marijuana in small amounts at home, enforcement is difficult. However, such measures can be a deterrent.

Second, government can restrict selling, distributing, accessing, or possessing certain information. When domestic intermediaries provide access to restricted information, regulation can be easy. Getting content removed from a website like DEFCAD is straightforward since it is a non-profit based out of Texas and the individuals operating the website are U.S. citizens. Similarly, the government could coerce compliance with a notice-and-takedown regime for any illicit 3D printing blueprints for websites hosted in the United States or by U.S.-based organizations.

But even if the government restricts domestic organizations from selling 3D printing designs for illicit goods (just as it restricts organizations from hosting other types of illegal digital content), it cannot restrict those operating outside of its jurisdiction. If this information is hosted outside of the United States or distributed enough in nature that there is no clear entity to take enforcement action against (e.g. an anonymous peer-to-peer network), then restricting access to this type of information becomes much more difficult. Certainly, other measures can be used, such as blocking access to the sites hosting this content, but past efforts to implement these types of measures during the SOPA/PIPA debate were politically unpopular.

If the government cannot regulate intermediaries from disseminating the information, it can outlaw possession of the information itself. In this case the government would go after individual users simply for having banned information, such as it does for possession of child pornography. Not surprisingly, attempts by government to control access to information often become contentious because of concerns about censorship and violations of free speech. But again, there is precedent. Governments already make it illegal to possess certain types of weapons-related information. For example, regardless of whether it is in a book or on the Internet, it is illegal to disseminate instructions on how to make certain types of explosives or weapons of mass destruction.(9) Still, because this is such a contentious free speech issue, it is not likely that Congress will pursue this path for 3D technology.

http://www2.itif.org/2013-regulate-illicit-3d-printing.pdf

[NutmegYankee]

3. There is information out there to make explosives. Actually doing so is illegal.

This may fall within a similar set of rules. But the attempt to actually block publishing information should send chills down any American's spine. Even with Classified information stolen and illegally released the SCOTUS upheld publishing the Pentagon Papers in 1975. And that was probably a far better government case for prior restraint.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. re: Undetectable Firearms Act

Undetectable by who? Mr Magoo? A plastic or composite (non-metal) gun may not ring any bells on a metal detector but they are plainly visible by x-ray and microwave based scanners. AND the bullets still set off the metal detectors.

Maybe congress should go back to watching Wargames. That might lead to some progress in some areas.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. If the parts are made to be assembled

they can look like "something else" so x-ray is useless. And you don't necessarily need metal bullets for the weapon to be "lethal".

The original law was passed 30 years ago.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. It sure was

Trying to ban Glocks was popular until they became the most popular service handguns for law enforcement.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

113. To be frank...

...of course the parts must be assembled. And yes if the firearm is made of plastic or composite materials a metal detector may miss it. If it is disassembled, it may be missed on an x-ray or other scanner.

However, the bullets will generally not be simply assembled. For one thing, there isn't much you can do to make a bullet look like anything else on a scanner. It is possible to make the projectile from a non-metallic substance but, in general, the less mass in the projectile the less energy will be imparted to it when all else remains the same. There are 3 factors determining the energy of the projectile: the mass, the barrel length and the amount of energy produced by the propellant.

All three of those factors make the gun/ammo less concealable. I'm not sure if it is generally known but scanners, detectors and x-ray equipment used in arms detection generally include components which sense aromatic chemicals such flammable and explosive compounds. I interviewed with a company that manufactures such equipment a few years ago.

Complicating the plans of those who would want to smuggle a firearm through these types of detection is the issue that one of the main reasons for a handgun to insure compliance with the perpetrators directions is that they contain several multiple rounds of ammo. I expect making non-metallic revolver would be possible but, again, the cylinder would be difficult to disguise. A magazine would also be hard to disguise if unloaded and even harder if loaded.

[DetlefK]

4. There is information that is outlawed. Several forms of porn are illegal.

IIRC "The Anarchist's Cookbook" is illegal, and it contains instructions how to build bombs.

Declaring a certain kind of information illegal is not as outlandish as you try to make it sound.

And it will be reposted, oh yes. And law-enforcement will go after everybody who uploads it, just like law-enforcement goes after people who upload pirated copyrighted material.

[PoliticAverse]

14. The Anarchist's Cookbook" isn't illegal...

https://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/0974458902

And then there's this:
https://www.amazon.com/U-S-Improvised-Munitions-Handbook-Survival-ebook/dp/B01LR7TP64

[Igel]

26. Certain types of porn are illegal.

But they're illegal because either they required imaging something illegal or their sale is taken to promote others to copy-cat it and do something illegal. In this case, it's the production that hurts people, not the use of what's produced. (And that's pretty much just child pornography, if I remember a-right.)

[Fred Sanders]

35. Even viewing is illegal. The logic of the first amendment "argument" is childish.

[Fred Sanders]

34. Where are the internet posted nuclear weapons plans then? I hate the false equivalency fallacy, so

beloved of fun nuts...just saying, sir.

[NutmegYankee]

39. I can look them up easily.

Modern plutonium designs are just tricky to time the explosives to provide the correct squeeze.

The Uranium 235 Little boy was very simple in design.

It’s the material that’s hard to acquire.

[Fred Sanders]

41. No. The design is complex and requires complex engineering skills by multiple disciplines, and

specialized metals and materials. I doubt there is an actual working blueprint anywhere on the Net...

Even if...Theoretical physicists and practical physicists exist separately because thinking of a thing and designing the construct is very hard and specialized, and then building the construct is a whole other ball team.

[NutmegYankee]

42. NO, the little boy design isn't that complex.

The process to get enough U235 is the complex part. Otherwise it was firing one slug into another for critical mass.

Most of the Manhattan Project was figuring out how to get enough fissionable material and proving the plutonium design would work. The Uranium design wasn’t tested because the scientists knew it would work.

[Fred Sanders]

43. The detailed Manhatten Project engineering blueprints, with construction specs, are online?

Might want one for the back yard...without the highly enriched weapons grade uranium of course.

The super high speed nuclear centrifuge plans would come in handy for that. Also one line is OK and they are available?

[NutmegYankee]

45. A modern engineer wouldn't need them. Nt

And frankly, a gunsmith wouldn’t need plans to make a gun either.

[NutmegYankee]

47. You make the assumption that nobody has the knowledge.

A common assumption of non-engineers. In reality, the principles are well known and understood. What’s self limiting is equipment, time, and money. That’s all that keeps a terrorist from getting a nuke.

The plastic gun war was lost once the first design succeeded. Now that it’s known to be possible, engineers will make new designs, likely improved.

[Fred Sanders]

48. I do not see your logic, simple as that. The gun control "war" was not lost with the first gun

design!

n/t

[NutmegYankee]

105. Honestly Fred, I don't think you see any at all.

You have a very authoritarian view on how the world works. It doesn’t work that way. In fact, vast numbers of people take delight in undermining authority every chance they get.

My point was any machinist can build a standard metal gun now, though it takes time and equipment. A single shot zip gun can be made in just a few hours. And a machinist/engineer can program a CNC machine to cut parts to make modern style guns quickly.

The handgun featured in this debate is just one of thousands of possible designs of 3D printed guns, all just waiting for someone to tinker on them. Now that people know it can be done, it’s just time and creativity. I’m positive that if I wanted to, I could design one with my mechanical engineering background, knowledge, and training. I just have no desire to.

[sarisataka]

49. I won't link to the site

Any more than I would post a link to "How to make ricin without killing yourself" but it took minimal searching to locate a site with this blurb:

Having trouble assembling your first atomic bomb? We've got you covered. These are recently declassified blueprints of early atomic weapons. The set includes 5 individual prints - copied directly from the original U.S. Government drawings on to bright white paper, and are bound for you in a "contractor’s pack." Each page measures 16" X 22". Included are dimensional drawings of both Fat Man and Little Boy.

[SomethingNew]

106. This has actually come up twice.

The first time the government blocked publication of nuclear weapon plans, the author of the article decided not to fight it. I believe the second time it was never fully litigated because the government dropped the injunction after the information was published elsewhere. The court would almost certainly strike down a prior restraint on publishing such information. If the 3d printing files are considered speech and if nobody is contesting that point (I don't know whether this is the case as I haven't kept up with how such files are treated in 1st A jurisprudence), the organizations and state governments trying to stop publication ought to be slapped down for bringing frivolous lawsuits.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

111. I used to have copies of the plans for Little Boy.

Downloaded them off the 'net in the mid '90s. Printed up copies and sold 'em for $5 each to people in my junior high school.

[Baconator]

62. It has failed in court already I believe...

[bucolic_frolic]

5. This is why elections matter

Government is already regulating the ownership of firearms to some extent with background checks, and limits on types of weapons and ammunition.

Guns are readily available and affordable. The need for untraceable plastic self-printed 3D guns is what exactly? It's either a novelty (so are firecrackers), cheap (see 'readily available'), or untraceable. Untraceable weapons are desirable for what purpose? 3D guns add little to the firearms experience, except anonymity. I can't see how government should sanction the tools of anonymous crimes.

[Igel]

27. This is a standard kind of philosophical question.

If a bit of technology is possible, or makes something possible, should it be done?

Often phrased more like, "If you could do it, should you do it?"

The point here isn't whether what's produced is necessary (deep fried twinkies aren't necessary) or good (ditto), there's a difference between banning the thing and banning the information necessary for producing the thing. You don't like deep-fried twinkies? Fine, ban them. But do you also ban the recipes? Okay, you ban the recipes. But a "deep-fried twinkie" recipe is probably easy enough to reproduce, so do we ban the word? How about the tools used?

Ultimately this post isn't about the gun but whether banning this particular information, a program, is appropriate. However, if this organization's information is banned, somebody could post the specs that went into making this program, making it relatively easy to reproduce this program. Would that also be illegal, letting people have the information necessary to write their own program? Or do we ban the printers themselves?

[Fred Sanders]

36. Making something illegal does not mean everyone will obey. Ever heard of deterrence and

denunciation? Works pretty well for the most part.

And making information means...making it harder to get for those willing to take the chance.

Criminology 101.

[MicaelS]

90. This whole pursuit of printed guns...

Is just a great big "Fuck You" to the advocates of Gun Control.

They are trying to prove that if you can print a gun, all Gun Control is useless, and shouldn't even be attempted.

I say "Fuck You" to people with that mindset. It's way past time for major Gun Control in this country.

[Maxheader]

6. blocked the release of the gun specs

Wonder which website shopping stores they will show up in 1st?

[Fred Sanders]

37. The illegal ones willing to go to jail?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. re: A well-regulated Militia...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

One more thing, it seems the AG doesn't know how a VPN works. Or maybe VPN service will soon be illegal...

Oh and...

PA lawmakers have spent decades carefully crafting our gun laws. They've imposed rules about background checks, age restrictions, the licensing process, etc. This would bypass all of that - and once they are out on the streets of PA, we'll never get them back.

Except they can't seem to find a way to ALLOW, let alone regulate, how private sellers can check the background of private buyers. This big fat stupid wink about doing something that makes people safer is just another headline grab.

I'm guessing Shapiro wants to be governor and Wolf wants to Pres. Not that either would be a bad choice, I just find cheap headline grabs distasteful.

The private sale laws would be immensely more effective if private individuals at least had the option to access a background check of the prospective buyers. Private sales have been referred to as "the gun show loophole" in the news. That term is just another misnomer like the term "gun-control". "Gun-control" is a myth. The only real control is self-control.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. Um an entity can "legally" restrict access to what they provide

and "illegally" accessing it (going around the access control) would then be a violation.

So people can have all kinds of child porn but if you are caught with it, since production of it and ownership of it is illegal, you are toast.

This has nothing to do with VPN. It means if you possess it, regardless of how you got it (printed and handed to you or via dark web) you are violating the law.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. I know

It's called prior restraint as someone else pointed out.

[BumRushDaShow]

17. It's sortof hard to see but in the AG's 2nd tweet

it is noting that the company (which has been around for quite awhile) can supposedly restrict access and in this case, HAS restricted access to PA residents. I.e., this little image -



Of course that is sortof meaningless other than them having some way to identify and filter IPs from download access (obviously from casual visitors) that originate in blocks assigned to ISPs for customers in PA (which can obviously be circumvented) but...

[PoliticAverse]

19. "The (Inter)Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

54. Of course it does and always has.

Just like before the "internet" (and "internet gambling"/sports betting, which were recently legalized) you had "gambling" only in designated areas and/or via a "state lottery"... but then you also had people "playing the numbers" or engaging in illegal bingo and sports-related betting (e.g., horse racing, various pro game pools and whatnot).

Stuff goes "underground". Always has and always will. But to engage in that often requires an effort and given that people tend to be lazy, you cut down on the number of those who participate in the activity.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

107. Empowering the people is a sign of leadership

When you disarm the people, you commence to offend them and show that you distrust them either through cowardice or lack of confidence, and both of these opinions generate hatred. - Niccolo Machiavelli

Empower the people by giving the common gun owner the ability to check the background of a person to whom he wants to sell a gun and more benefit will follow from that than from all the bans and threats of prison or double secret probation could possibly hope to accomplish.

[Vinca]

8. Finally . . . an outbreak of sanity.

[PoliticAverse]

11. Reviewing US Supreme Court cases on the 1st amendment apparently isn't a necessity to be PA AG. n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

16. See this

related to the 2003 Child Pornography law -

“Offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection,” Justice Scalia wrote.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/washington/19cnd-scotus.html

(I can't believe I am quoting the devil Scalia. )

I think what this exercise will do is instruct on how states/Congress might craft legislation to regulate this - i.e., if anything is needed in addition to the Undetectable Firearms Act -

Obama Signs Bill to Extend Ban on Plastic Guns
President Obama on Monday signed a bill that extends the ban on plastic firearms for another 10 years.

By Chloe Albanesius
December 10, 2013 2:50PM EST

President Obama on Monday signed a bill that extends the ban on plastic firearms for another 10 years. The president signed the Undetectable Firearms Act extension last night, just hours before it was set to expire. According to Huffington Post reporter Jennifer Bendery, the president - who was in South Africa for Nelson Mandela's memorial service - signed the bill using an "autopen," which allows for remote approval of legislation.

The bill outlaws the manufacture, import, selling, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or reception of any firearm that is not detectable by walk-through metal detectors, or has major components that do not generate an accurate image by airport X-ray machines.

The issue made headlines in the last year or two amidst the rise of 3D printers, which some enthusiasts have used to print plastic guns.

Leading the charge was non-profit group Defense Distributed, which launched Defcad, known as the Pirate Bay of 3D printing. Cody Wilson, University of Texas student and Defense Distributed founder, raised $20,000 in a grassroots online campaign to lease a Stratasys uPrint SE, but when word of his plans to print guns got out, the company showed up at his house to pick it up. Later, the State Department forced Defcad to remove its 3D-printable gun files because they violated International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2428186,00.asp

[PoliticAverse]

18. BTW the State Department just threw in the towel in this issue, see...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2114364

Also the State Department once tried to use ITAR to prevent information on cryptography from being published but was forced to back down by the courts (see Bernstein v. United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States and Junger v. Daley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junger_v._Daley ).

[BumRushDaShow]

22. Yes

I posted some add'l info in the GD thread here, but to highlight regarding the Democratic response to the State Dept. decision and DOJ -

3D-printed guns could soon pose challenge to regulators
Jul 29, 2018 2:48 PM EDT

<...>

Can the U.S. regulate “ghost guns”?

<...>

At the federal level, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has demanded the government reverse its June decision. At a press conference on July 22, he said, “The danger that could happen can be enormous. To have crazy people have easy access, to have terrorists have easy access to this kind of website and allow them to make plastic AR 15s undetected — so-called “ghost guns” — justifies the imagination,” according to the . On July 23, Schumer’s fellow lawmakers, including Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking him to explain the government’s recent settlement decision.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/3d-printed-guns-could-soon-pose-challenge-to-regulators

[PoliticAverse]

23. Yes sadly there are some Democrats out of step with the 1st amendment. n/t

[ET Awful]

20. Did you really just cite a child pornography case to substantiate your argument?

You're discussing two very different things.

The article you refer to regarding a ban is a proper ban, as it outlaws the "manufacture, import, selling, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or reception" not of plans, but of plastic guns themselves. Written plans on how to make one is far different than following through on the plans and would have First Amendment protections.

This is nothing more than a modern version of a zip gun, people have been able to get plans for those for . . . 100 years or so.

Plans are also readily available for manufacturing drugs, making various other illicit substances, hacking into computer systems, etc., modifying existing firearms, etc. Publishing that information is protected by the First Amendment. Making the devices would not be defendable.

For instance - a document telling someone how to access Silk Road to buy drugs when they existed would be protected. Buying drugs on silk road would not be protected.

Or, to go into your child pornography example - books on photography, lighting, videography and how to access the darker corners of the web are perfectly legal. Using that information to disseminate or receive child pornography would NOT be legal.

[BumRushDaShow]

24. The case has to do with the "First Amendment"

and the argument that Scalia made regarding "illegal transactions". And yes, what you wrote here -

Using that information to disseminate or receive child pornography would NOT be legal.

is EXACTLY what I am saying.

And note that "transaction" without a cost ("free" ) is not somehow exempted as a "transaction".

[ET Awful]

28. The very specific quote you used from the case:

"“Offers to engage in illegal transactions are categorically excluded from First Amendment protection,” Justice Scalia wrote."

Is what I mean when I say it has no bearing in this discussion. Copying plans is not an offer to engage in an illegal transaction. Allowing others to copy those plans is not an illegal transaction. Selling those plans is not an illegal transaction. The very specific quote you give has zero relationship to this discussion.

If someone was offering to use their 3D printer to make one of these for others for a fee, that would be an illegal transaction.

Gun plans in and of themselves are not illegal. You can find plans and blueprints for heavy machine guns quite easily. Manufacturing them is a different story.

The difference youi're missing here is this: Gun plans are NOT illegal. Child pornography IS illegal.

When was the last time you called on Amazon to stop selling gunsmithing books? They sell plenty of books such as https://www.amazon.com/Homebuilt-Firearms-Gary-F-Hartman/dp/0981539920 yet is screaming for them to censor those books and prevent their sale.

This book has been debated for many years (decades even) in one version or another: https://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/0974458902/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1532954416&sr=1-1&keywords=anarchists+cookbook

Many of the items in it would be illegal if you made them. That doesn't make the book illegal.

Once again, blueprints, plans, etc. are perfectly legal. Building the prohibited devices would not be.

To return to your quote - there is NO "offer to engage in illegal transactions" in this case. That would not be the case with child pornography as any dissemination of that material, the creation of the material to begin with, the actions required to coerce or force children into the situation would be illegal and rightly so. But, again, that is not the case here.

[BumRushDaShow]

30. If a state makes the transaction illegal

then it is illegal.

The current "injunction" that PA has put in place, makes the transaction "illegal".

[ET Awful]

40. And that will not stand up to a First Amendment challenge

Freedom of speech and of the press is a cornerstone of democracy.

[BumRushDaShow]

46. A "transaction" (exchange) is not the same as "speech"

and even then, "speech" has limitations as well - the old "Yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theater" test.

I know there are people concerned about the 1st Amendment but much of it has to do with one's right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

[ET Awful]

51. Little tip: If your argument had merit, books that outline bomb making, gun making, etc. could be

banned and would have been banned long ago. It's quite simple for a state to say "you can't ship this into our state." They've done with some kinds of knives, martial arts weapons, etc. Published material is not that, it is protected speech under the First Amendment which covers Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, and the right to petition for redress of grievances (which the publisher of the material could do if someone blocked their publication). You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is covered by the First Amendment. This has no correlation whatsoever to yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. To suggest it does resorts to a high level of rhetorical nonsense if not downright intellectual dishonesty.

Materials have been widely available for years such as the Anarchists Cookbook. It's legally protected speech and is covered by Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

It's no different than publishing the Turner Diaries. Simply because you disapprove of speech doesn't mean it isn't protected.

[BumRushDaShow]

53. A little tip: Use your noggin.

You are still making my argument and are completely confused about where I am coming from.

It's quite simple for a state to say "you can't ship this into our state."

And PA is saying - "you can't download this into our state". It's the same concept as your example except it is not coming through U.S. mail or some shipping company like UPS or FedEx like a hardback or softback "book" or pamphlet, etc.

No one has said anything about whether they could publish it or not, but downloading ("bringing it in" ) is something different. The online world has analogies regarding whether the item is say a physical "book" or its electronic equivalent ("a file" ), it's basically the same thing. Something "tangible". DMCA is an example of prohibitions (including related to piracy) to protect electronic copyrighted material.

Just stop digging.

[PoliticAverse]

57. 'but downloading ("bringing it in" ) is something different.' - actually it isn't.

"bringing it in" via the Internet is illegal only if having it or "copying it" is illegal in the first place. This is why you can't download copyrighted material.

Copyright protects printed as well as electronic reproduction rights and the DMCA is for both printed and electronic copyright issues.

He's not the one that's "digging".

Should this get to the US Supreme Court the liberal wing will slap the prohibition down strongly.

[BumRushDaShow]

58. You just distorted what I wrote

Yes you CAN forbid something from coming into your state. It has to do with "interstate commerce". That is different from actually being able to create it which can be legal or illegal.

E.g., in the horticulture world - people can plant and grow citrus (I won't even get into the cannabis argument). But because of certain citrus diseases such as citrus greening ("HLB" ), growers (nurseries or individuals) cannot bring citrus into certain states so as not to spread the disease any further.

I.e., citrus trees are NOT "illegal" but it is illegal to ship or otherwise transport them into certain states that have quarantines and enacted laws prohibiting interstate commerce of such.

Again - stop.

[PoliticAverse]

59. The first amendment doesn't protect "trees*" (and now you've apparently digging holes for those).

* At least the transport of actual ones, books and websites about trees are protected, even in California.

[BumRushDaShow]

61. Again stop.

We are talking about "files" and you then argued that someone can't restrict access of something coming into a state unless that something was "illegal" and I gave you an example of restrictions on interstate commerce of something that was not "illegal".

[ET Awful]

65. No, you gave an example of something that is not Constitutionally protected.

Citrus, trees, plants, etc. are not speech.

[BumRushDaShow]

69. The illustration was directly related to the Commerce Clause

as an analogy. You do know what an analogy is? Or is your Constitution missing some pages? Article I, Section 8

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8

Which is why this (PA action) was filed in federal court.

[ET Awful]

70. The commerce clause can not override the First Amendment.

You did know that right? That's why a bible belt state can't prohibit sales of the Koran. You might want to have 10 years in the legal profession under your belt before you reply.

[BumRushDaShow]

77. See this post

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2122164

[ET Awful]

81. Please provide the legal citation.

An article which mentions that they are still addressing it in courts isn't a legal citation btw. That article you post does not support your argument.

[BumRushDaShow]

84. I am trying to find a copy of what the heck they filed

including citations. Without that, everyone arguing the legalities, including YOU, are pissing into the wind.

In the meantime, a federal judge seemed to have received enough at the time of filing to issue the temporary injunction. From what I understand, additional details for the motion are due to the court from the state by 5 pm today.

[ET Awful]

92. A filing is meaningless without a decision. You did know that right?

Temporary injunctions are not legal decisions either. They merely say we are allowing xxxx to happen until an actual decision is reached. They are a standard procedure, not a final decision, that's why they're "temporary"

A filing is just that, a single filing by one side in a case.

You really need to learn legal procedure.

[BumRushDaShow]

95. Look

Without violating my NDA - I have had to put together stuff for DOJ and work with them to execute injunctions and seizures for my agency.

The action is the action and until a decision is made either way, the Court has put a HALT to the access. THAT is a fact and that is "legal". YOU need to come off the high horse of assuming that you know all and nothing came before you.

[ET Awful]

98. It is not a final deicision by the court, nor is it a judgment

It is a standard procedure, which I encountered many times over the years.

It has no effect on the legal merits of the case, nor does it pass judgment on them.

You have already illustrated an abysmal lack of knowledge of legal process in your attempt to assert that a filing somehow displays proof of your position when, if you knew as much as you claim about the law, you'd know that it merely presents one side of an argument.

You've merely convinced me that you do NOT know what you're talking about.

[BumRushDaShow]

102. No one said that it had any effect on the legal merits

So you shift again.

The fact is that info was presented to court and the court put a stop to (enjoin) the action pending further info. If there had been no standing or a no expectation of eminent threat, the injunction would not have been granted at all. Injunctions are not handed out like candy.

I am convinced that you are truly testing out silly debate techniques designed to marginalize the other person and not the argument itself.

[sl8]

108. Filings links:

Court Filings In Pennsylvania v. Defense Distributed – An Interesting Look Behind The Scenes…
https://blog.princelaw.com/2018/07/30/court-filings-in-pennsylvania-v-defense-distributed-an-interesting-look-behind-the-scenes/

Filings in Defense Distributed v. U.S. Department of State
http://joshblackman.com/blog/about-josh/defense-distributed-v-u-s-department-of-state/

[BumRushDaShow]

109. Thank you!

[BumRushDaShow]

85. Deleting the duplicate post (DU hiccup).

[PoliticAverse]

73. There is no Constitutionally protected right to own (or import into a state)

a specific (and possibly diseased) plant or tree.

You can still download books or visit websites about "banned" trees, even in states they're banned. Yes, even books or websites about marijuana (even in Republican prohibition states).

This issue is about information.

Information that could be published in a book as well as on a website.

[BumRushDaShow]

79. The state's argument (in part) is in this post

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2122164

[ET Awful]

64. Is it now your contention that citrus is speech? n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

66. No my argument *to the other poster*

was that you can restrict interstate commerce of something that is "legal". Or did you miss the argument the other poster was making that the item had to be "illegal" in order to restrict it?

[ET Awful]

63. The point, since it apparently flew past your head, is that if they could do so legally, they WOULD.

They, however, can not legally do so. You're not too up on the whole Constitutional law thing are you?

[BumRushDaShow]

68. Looks like what I wrote is completely beyond your comprehension

... particularly when it comes to interstate commerce and restrictions of it.

Each analogy given goes whoosh!

[PoliticAverse]

71. This is not an "interstate commerce" issue, this is a first amendment issue.

Do you seriously think if these plans were published in a book that a state could ban import of the book
and the Supreme Court wouldn't overturn the ban based on the first amendment? If you do, follow the
court decisions on this issue, you may learn something.

[BumRushDaShow]

75. Here is a summary of one the issues that the PA AG, Governor, and PA State Police filed

(I am trying to find a copy of whatever they submitted to get the temporary injunction) -

Company that makes 3D downloadable guns agrees to make sites inaccessible in Pa.
Updated Jul 29, 10:04 PM; Posted Jul 29, 10:04 PM

<...>

According to the lawsuit, anyone can become a member of Defense Distributed for a nominal fee. When you sign up, you are only required to pick a username, password and supply an email - you are not asked for proof of age, a valid gun license or a permit-to-carry number. The company promises that by joining, members "do more than protect the Second Amendment. They fund its direct, material expansion," according to the lawsuit.

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2018/07/company_that_makes_3d_download.html

The interstate commerce clause gives the right to "regulate commerce" between the states and could have potentially been used as part of that settlement to have that site (theoretically) "go dark" within PA pending the litigation.

[PoliticAverse]

78. The right to "regulate commerce" between the states was given to the Federal Government.

The commerce clause is about what the Federal Government can do, not what the state of PA can do (although
the commerce clause allows Congress to stop states from certain regulation of commerce).
States already were considered to have the right to regulate commerce before the Constitution.

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

Again this is a first amendment issue not a "commerce" issue, this will become apparent as the issue makes it's way through the courts unless PA gives up like the State Department did in their attempt to use ITAR regulations to stop the spread of the plans.

[ET Awful]

82. This is exactly accurate from a legal perspective.

The Supremacy Clause would override any argument or attempt by the state to render the First Amendment subordinate to state law.

Marbury v. Madison holds that Congress can not pass a law which violates the Constitution which is exactly what any law restricting free speech in this regard would do.

[BumRushDaShow]

83. And this is why the case was filed in federal court

versus the state court.

The lawyer from the company even mentions "interstate commerce" -

<...>

The attempts by local and state government to block Defense Distributed also amount to a violation of Wilson’s rights to participate in intrastate and interstate commerce and his and the public’s Second Amendment rights, Blackman argued.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/30/data-allowing-people-to-print-out-their-own-guns-temporarily-blocked-from-internet-in-pa-after-legal-pressure/?utm_term=.8be40715ac5f

So yes, that comes into play.

[PoliticAverse]

86. That's a good lawyer using every possible legal argument for their client. Please note however...

that the argument was given as a reason the state of PA could not legally regulate the "importation" of the files
in question.

Note that the second amendment was used as an argument as well, but I do still believe that as the issue is one
of the Internet and information that this is basically a first amendment issue.

[BumRushDaShow]

89. This is why I am trying to find a copy of what was filed

The state supposedly has until 5 pm today to file more details.

They FINALLY posted the press release which is this which apparently includes some references to their arguments -

Press Release
Attorney General Shapiro, Governor Wolf, State Police Successfully Block Access to 3D Downloadable Guns in Pennsylvania
July 29, 2018 | Topic: Rights

Website publishing files will be inaccessible to Pennsylvania consumers; Texas company promises court to not upload any new 3D gun files to Internet

HARRISBURG — Attorney General Josh Shapiro, Governor Tom Wolf and the Pennsylvania State Police tonight successfully blocked access to 3D downloadable guns in Pennsylvania. Following an emergency hearing in federal court in Philadelphia initiated by the Attorney General, a company seeking to distribute downloadable gun files over the Internet agreed to make its sites unaccessible to Pennsylvania users, and to not upload any new 3D gun files.

Before today’s hearing, the company, Defense Distributed, had promised that on August 1, “the age of the downloadable gun formally begins.” Today, the defendants claimed in court that they began distributing gun files even earlier – on Friday. By Sunday, 1,000 people had already downloaded 3D plans for AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifles.

The public safety controversy erupted after Defense Distributed recently settled with the federal government following a lengthy litigation, allowing it to continue its ‘at home’ gun-printing business. Left unchecked, Americans would be able to download a wide range of actual, working guns, including AR-15s, and 3D print their own guns – without serial numbers and without being subjected to the background check system for gun sales currently in place under federal and state law through licensed firearms dealers.

Attorney General Shapiro, Gov. Wolf and the State Police sued today in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to block the company from distributing its 3D gun designs in Pennsylvania. This evening, the company agreed to block Pennsylvania users from its site, following an emergency hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Paul Diamond.

“The harm to Pennsylvanians would have been immediate and irreversible,” Attorney General Shapiro said. “Defense Distributed was promising to distribute guns in Pennsylvania in reckless disregard of the state laws that apply to gun sales and purchases in our Commonwealth. Once these untraceable guns are on our streets and in our schools, we can never get them back. The decision tonight to block Pennsylvania users from downloading these 3D gun files is a victory for public safety and common sense. The company also agreed to not upload any new gun files to its sites – another important development.”

“The threat of untraceable guns in the hands of unknown owners is too daunting to stand by and not take action,” Governor Wolf said. “Attorney General Shapiro and I will fight to protect Pennsylvania families and children. The federal government has abdicated its responsibility to keep our citizens safe but we will not be deterred from working to ensure Pennsylvania safety laws are followed and our residents are protected from these dangerous weapons getting in the wrong hands.”

According to the lawsuit, anyone can become a member of Defense Distributed for a nominal fee. When you sign up, you are only required to pick a username, password and supply an email – you are not asked for proof of age, a valid gun license or a permit-to-carry number. The company promises that by joining, members “do more than protect the Second Amendment. They fund its direct, material expansion”, according to the lawsuit.

Over decades, Pennsylvania lawmakers have created legal controls to ensure citizens can safely exercise all of the rights to which they are entitled: the right to bear arms and the right to live peacefully. The lawsuit states that “among these controls are criminal laws, including the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act. This long-settled statute requires protections in order to possess potentially-deadly weapons such a minimum age for purchase, background checks, and valid firearms licenses and permits.”

The lawsuit states that “Defense Distributed has sought to bypass these established legal requirements to instantaneously deliver real, operational firearms to any Pennsylvanian with an internet connection and a 3D printer.”

The Commonwealth’s lawsuit alleges violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995 and the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as well as Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The Commonwealth applied for a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent Defense Distributed from making any 3D printable firearms available over the Internet.

Attorney General Shapiro and his legal team, working in concert with the Governor and State Police, will continue seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against Defense Distributed’s plans to make its 3D gun files available online as the litigation continues.

# # #

https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/press-releases/attorney-general-shapiro-governor-wolf-state-police-successfully-block-access-to-3d-downloadable-guns-in-pennsylvania/

[ET Awful]

96. I'll give you a minute to reread what that quote about interstate commerce says in the Post.

Once you understand that what is saying is that the rights of the distributor are violated, you MIGHT come to the understanding that the Commerce Clause you are touting so heavily is here being used to say the State can not interfere with the right of the distributor. Or did you not actually read the quote?

[BumRushDaShow]

99. I gave you the quote

because the argument BEFORE was that this did not even come into play. Yet now you accept that IS in play and have now shifted.

Just. Give. Up.

[BumRushDaShow]

103. Ahh... we're now down to insults.

Ahhh well...

[ET Awful]

74. No, you just don't know Constitutional law.

The Commerce Clause does not undo the Bill of Rights.

For instance - if the Commerce Clause could override the Bill of Rights (and by extension other amendments to the Constitution), southern states could engage in the slave trade between states, as that would be interstate commerce. The Bill of Rights and any other amendments are not subject to alteration by the states. That is fact.

While you sit there spouting the Commerce Clause, you should probably focus more on the Supremacy Clause.

[BumRushDaShow]

76. The Commerce Clause allows regulation between the states

Your arguing of "free speech" is not at immediate issue here because PA is not banning the creation of those plans. Just restricting access to them - apparently without some kind of "controls" per what I posted in another post -

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2122164

Company that makes 3D downloadable guns agrees to make sites inaccessible in Pa.

Updated Jul 29, 10:04 PM; Posted Jul 29, 10:04 PM

<...>

According to the lawsuit, anyone can become a member of Defense Distributed for a nominal fee. When you sign up, you are only required to pick a username, password and supply an email - you are not asked for proof of age, a valid gun license or a permit-to-carry number. The company promises that by joining, members "do more than protect the Second Amendment. They fund its direct, material expansion," according to the lawsuit.

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2018/07/company_that_makes_3d_download.html

The interstate commerce clause gives the right to "regulate commerce" between the states and could have potentially been used as part of that settlement to have that site (theoretically) "go dark" within PA pending the litigation.

[ET Awful]

80. You've proven that you do not understand the First Amendment and the Supremacy Clause.

Sorry, but "could have potentially been used" isn't a legal argument.

The First Amendment IS supreme here, to argue otherwise is to show ignorance of Constitutional law.

Once again, using your interpretation of the Commerce Clause, and stating that it can be used to circumvent Constitutional law would allow states to bar any books they didn't like for any reason. You are, in fact, making an argument that if they wanted to, Kansas could outlaw the offer for sale of the Koran if they so chose.

Take your argument through to its logical conclusion. While you're doing that, note that no legal decision has been reached regarding PA, and the case has not been addressed in court.

[BumRushDaShow]

87. The "Commerce Clause" IS part of the Constitution

As I posted above - no one here knows what was filed including you (which is why I am looking for that info), so take your own advice but also take note that a temporary injunction WAS issued meaning that what was filed was enough for a judge to do that and the request was not summarily dismissed out of hand.

Working for the federal government for 30+ years and having to work with DOJ for filing suits on behalf of my agency (including the Commerce clause) means I am not completely ignorant of the process.

[ET Awful]

93. I spent over 10 years in the legal profession and have been heavily involved in arguing cases

in courts from Municipal courts up to the Supreme Court. I engaged in legal discovery, legal research, preparation of filings, pre-trial hearings, trials, appeals, the whole gamut.

What's your legal experience?


The Commerce Clause does NOT override the First Amendment. You haven't yet provided a court decision or citation for your argument. A filing by one party is not a decision.

Here's an example of what I mean by a filing is not a decision. I once worked on the defense of a case where a dead mans wife sued his employer posthumously stating that job related stress led him to make poor decisions outside work which ultimately led to his demise. Although there was little doubt that the case would fail at trial, a judge issued a temporary injunction on the sale of assets from the business. Ultimately, as expected, the case was dismissed and the injunction was lifted.

I'll suggest again - learn something about the law before you argue it.

[BumRushDaShow]

97. I spent 30+ years working for an agency of the federal government

including development of evidence and compiling citations related to our covered CFRs for DOJ to issue injunctions and seizures. And I will not violate my NDA to discuss that with some anonymous internet poster.

You need to step lightly.

[ET Awful]

100. Was that a threat? "You need to step lightly?"

Who the fuck do you think you are? Am I supposed to fear you?

[BumRushDaShow]

104. Time for you to step away from the keyboard

This is an anonymous internet board. It's not worth it for your well being.

[Marengo]

115. I'd like to know what the consequences are for not stepping lightly, but they rarely say.

[Igel]

29. So parallel it.

Downloading the gun-print file would not be illegal.

Using that information to actually produce a gun would be.

Try to make that enforceable.

[BumRushDaShow]

31. Right. And how that is enforceable is that it would violate the Undetectable Firearms Act

recently renewed in 2013.

[PoliticAverse]

21. Reminder: September 23-28 is "Banned Books Week" in 2018...

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks



(That message is brought to you by the American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom)

[Le Gaucher]

25. if this going to affect profits of gun manufacturers - expect NRA to crack down on this

[metalbot]

32. This is a bit of a red herring

The gun plans that Defense Distributed are proposing to distribute aren't particularly robust.

In contrast, anyone with a few hundred dollars of shop equipment can create a serial-numberless "untraceable" AK-47 in their garage using a kit (which contains the parts that aren't regulated by the ATF) and a flat piece of aluminum that is cut to a particular shape (and is also not regulated by the ATF).

The reaction of "OMG - PEOPLE CAN MAKE THEIR OWN GUNS AND WILL FLOOD THE STREETS WITH THEM" is a bit of an odd argument given that people can already make fully functional semi-automatic rifles in their garage perfectly legally, and there is no evidence that these manufactured guns are being used in crimes.

Somewhat tongue in cheek:

I could propose an alternative to "ban the plans": regulate the 3-D printers. Those are physical items that can be tracked, and there's no compelling reason why anyone "needs" a 3-D printer, and if someone did have a need, they could apply for a permit and be subject to inspection. In addition, 3-D printers don't have nearly the same facade of protection in the constitution as firearms do.


But agreed with some other posts. Attempts to make distribution of this information illegal is going to be an expensive waste of money, because ultimately this is going to be a first amendment issue. It's 100% legal to write a book on building bombs. It's 100% legal to write a book on how to build a nuclear weapon (as long as you aren't a defense contractor who learned this under NDA). You can write books on how to do any number of reprehensible and illegal things, and this is going to be legal. A set of instructions for a 3-D printer isn't going to be treated any differently than a book on how to make a gun in your garage.

That being said, a state could probably attempt to regulate the actual printing of these firearms. Manufacturing of firearms is already regulated by BATFE, though current guidelines allow you to build a certain number of firearms before they consider you a "manufacturer".

[PoliticAverse]

33. And Defense Distrubuted actually sells a _device_ to make an "untraceable" gun from metal...

along with the parts to make your gun:
https://ghostgunner.net/products/ghost-gunner-2-deposit

If 3D printers become regulated I suspect it will be because large corporations get upset that anyone can compete with them from their kitchen table.

[xor]

52. That looks like just a regular desktop CNC machine

You can go ebay and pick one up for pretty cheap. I've been wanting to get one myself for awhile now.

[PoliticAverse]

55. Right, it's a little CNC machine to machine the aluminum lower receiver "kit". n/t

[docgee]

38. Glad most on here respect the 1st amendment.

On the bright side when it hits the SC, we will find out who the NRA ownes.

[PoliticAverse]

56. Will thise be the ones deciding against allowing publication or in favor of it? n/t

[docgee]

67. I suspect the gun lobby is against losing money to 'print your own' guns.

[EX500rider]

72. I doubt they will care too much.

Most gun owners aren't going to want some flimsy one shot plastic junk.

[PoliticAverse]

88. There are 3D printers that can print in metal but they are a bit more expensive (and messy). n/t

[amcgrath]

44. You can rest assured

That the government will do everything in their power to stop this. And will have the full backing of the NRA.

Not because the government cares about access to weapons, but because the NRA, who it bows down to is funded by gun manufacturers.

This isn't about the risk to human life, this is about the risk to weapons makers profits.

[EX500rider]

110. The vast majority of guns in the US are sold for home defense & personal safety as primary reason.

No one in their right mind in going to built a plastic 1 shot piece of junk for that.

So the gun manufacturers couldn't care less I bet. I doubt the NRA will be against it either, they aren't fond of guns laws that restrict.

Someone breaks into your house, you want to confront them with this:



Or this:?

?v=1490582521

[dembotoz]

50. getting the plans will be the newest geek trophy...i got thre plans and you can't....

like porn

[Devil Child]

60. Too late PA, already downloaded my guns n/t

[PoliticAverse]

91. This lawsuit seems to guarantee that many more people will have these files than would otherwise. nt

Last edited Mon Jul 30, 2018, 05:16 PM - Edit history (1)

[ET Awful]

94. Bingo. How many copies of the files do you think have been e-mailed in zip form to PA

downloaded via FTP, shared as torrent files, etc.?

[sl8]

112. Elsewhere in Pennsylvania

From https://www.wired.com/2014/11/atlas-314-3-d-printed-guns-bullets/

THE BULLET THAT COULD MAKE 3-D PRINTED GUNS PRACTICAL DEADLY WEAPONS

Andy Greenberg
11.05.1406:30 AM


The 3-D printable blueprint of Michael Crumling's test gun, with his specially designed ammunition round shown in darker grey. MICHAEL CRUMLING

AS 3-D PRINTED guns have evolved over the past 18 months from a science-fictional experiment into a subculture, they've faced a fundamental limitation: Cheap plastic isn't the best material to contain an explosive blast. Now an amateur gunsmith has instead found a way to transfer that stress to a component that's actually made of metal—the ammunition.

Michael Crumling, a 25-year-old machinist from York, Pennsylvania, has developed a round designed specifically to be fired from 3-D printed guns. His ammunition uses a thicker steel shell with a lead bullet inserted an inch inside, deep enough that the shell can contain the explosion of the round's gunpowder instead of transferring that force to the plastic body or barrel of the gun. Crumling says that allows a home-printed firearm made from even the cheapest materials to be fired again and again without cracking or deformation. And while his design isn't easily replicated because the rounds must be individually machined for now, it may represent another step towards durable, practical, printed guns—even semi-automatic ones.


...

More at link.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

114. And metallic bullets kind of defeat the idea of a plastic undetectable gun