I’m sure you’ve heard all about them by now.
Defense Distributed’s controversial files are designed to 3D-print receivers. What comes out of the 3D printer isn’t a working weapon, but something that still must be mated to bolts, barrels, trigger groups, stocks, and other necessary parts before it ever fires a bullet. Defense Distributed’s Liberator pistol design is perhaps the closest thing to a complete printable firearm, but the enthusiast must still source key parts such as a metal tube for a barrel and a nail for a firing pin.
The U.S. government recognizes the right of citizens to build their own firearms, and all of these parts are readily available in gun shops or online, as they always have been. So all of this is perfectly legal. Where Defense Distributed and the government clashed is over the ability of people in foreign countries to download the files.
[…]
Building a gun this way from parts already on the market is much easier and cheaper than the new and controversial 3D printing method. I once did it in my own kitchen, and the result is a much more reliable, durable firearm than you’d get from 3D-printed parts. Frankly, 3D printing gun parts is the most complicated way for a criminal to get his hands on a firearm, after stealing a gun from a legal gun owner, buying a gun on the black market, and finishing an 80 percent receiver.
Let’s be clear about what has just happened. A federal court has issued a prior restraint on speech (it’s attempting to block the spread of information; it is not blocking the lawful home manufacture of firearms) that is already thoroughly and completely moot. The files are out. They’re all over the internet. They’ve been copied and reproduced. The judge’s order can’t change that fact.
Moreover, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation are hardly the only sources for online files or blueprints that enable a home manufacturer with a 3D printer to make a gun. I’m honestly unclear what the court is trying to accomplish here, aside from targeting the Trump administration and/or targeting a disfavored private company.
Earlier today I published a lengthy explainer of the factual and legal issues surrounding the 3D-printed gun controversy. I’d urge you to read the whole thing, but the bottom line is easy to understand. First, home manufacture of weapons is clearly lawful, and it has been common practice in the United States since before the founding of the nation. Second, it is thus just as lawful to “print” a gun as it is to assemble one with parts in your garage. Third, the plans to print guns are widely-available on the internet — and have been for some time.
