{"id":1956,"date":"2013-09-24T18:19:12","date_gmt":"2013-09-24T18:19:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=1956"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:54:00","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:54:00","slug":"3-d-printing-and-firearms-revisited-a-complete-gun-and-renewed-calls-for-regulation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/3-d-printing-and-firearms-revisited-a-complete-gun-and-renewed-calls-for-regulation\/","title":{"rendered":"3-D Printing and Firearms Revisited: A Complete Gun and Renewed Calls for Regulation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tuesday, September 24, 2013, by Timothy McKeever
\nIn March, a post<\/a> on this blog reported on the story of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed<\/a>, who, at that time, had created a fully functional lower receiver<\/a> for an AR-15 assault rifle using a 3-D printer. \u00a0That article discussed the possible need for new regulation to address the potential risks created by 3-D printing technology that allows people to produce firearm components from their own living rooms.\u00a0 Since then, Wilson and Defense Distributed went a step further, successfully producing a complete handgun, \u201cThe Liberator<\/a>,\u201d using a 3-D printer. \u00a0The group shared the digital schematics for that handgun online, allowing anyone with access to the site and a 3-D printer to create their own with just a few clicks of the mouse. \u00a0Shortly thereafter, the Department of State responded to Wilson\u2019s activities.<\/p>\n

In the wake of renewed attention to gun regulations, 3-D printable firearms will likely continue to be the target of legislative proposals seeking to restrict access to firearms.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In a letter<\/a> on May 8th, the Department of State Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance \u201cdemand[ed] that [Wilson] take down the online blueprints for the 3D-printable \u201cLiberator\u201d handgun that [Wilson]’s group released [May 5th], along with nine other 3D-printable firearms components hosted on [Defense Distributed]’s website.”<\/a> \u00a0The letter alleged that publicly sharing the Computer Assisted Drafting (\u201cCAD\u201d) digital files used to 3-D print the Liberator and other firearm components violates the Arms Export Control Act (AECA<\/a>) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)<\/a> as \u201ctechnical data\u201d relating to items on the restricted munitions list<\/a>. \u00a0Wilson complied, removing the CAD files from the group\u2019s website.
\nBut the State Department\u2019s action might still be too late\u2014downloads of the Liberator schematics topped 100,000 in just two days<\/a>, Defense Distributed garnered significant support, and the publicity inspired numerous imitators<\/a>. Though the letter may have slowed Wilson\u2019s direct downloads temporarily, the alleged \u201cdamage\u201d is in many ways already done\u2014 and the original Liberator design still remains available for download from numerous other servers.
\nSupporters of the Defense Distributed mission, who include Second Amendment and free-internet advocates, maintain that the State Department inquiry relies on nothing more than a technicality<\/a>. \u00a0Critics contend that the Defense Distributed activities with 3-D printing technology create serious dangers in need of urgent attention. \u00a0The issue has been the subject of legislative concerns in the past. \u00a0In December 2012, New York Congressman Steve Israel raised the issue<\/a> before Congress after Defense Distributed revealed its AR-15 lower, calling for renewal of the Undetectable Firearms Act<\/a>\u2014a different legal ground than those in the State Department letter.\u00a0 After the release of Defense Distributed\u2019s entirely printed gun, New York Senator Charles Schumer voiced his support for prohibition of 3-D printed firearms,<\/a> announcing that he and Representative Israel would introduce and co-sponsor the \u201cUndetectable Firearms Modernization Act\u201d to renew the prior law and update it to account for 3-D technology. \u00a0The twin proposed bills, S. 1149<\/a> and H.R. 1474<\/a>, currently sit in Committee awaiting further action. \u00a0In the wake of renewed attention to gun regulations, 3-D printable firearms will likely continue to be the target of legislative proposals seeking to restrict access to firearms. \u00a0The current Undetectable Firearms Act is set to expire in December 2013. \u00a0It remains unclear whether the State Department letter to Wilson signals an intent to regulate 3-D printable on entirely different grounds. Regardless, as the capabilities of the technology improve and the price of home 3-D printers declines, the issue is likely to grow.
\nAlthough Wilson complied with the State Department request, recent revelations hint that the aftermath of the inquiry has not fully played out for him and his group. In July, JP Morgan Chase Bank terminated the back account<\/a> for Wilson\u2019s affiliated host site<\/a> for CAD files, and PayPal suspended Defense Distributed\u2019s account<\/a>, a means of fundraising<\/a> for the group.\u00a0 These troubles are not the first obstacle faced by the group, however. Before completing the Liberator, Defense Distributed had its first 3-D printer confiscated by the company<\/a> who had leased it to them after they learned of its intended purpose. \u00a0In February, the IRS placed Defense Distributed\u2019s application for non-profit exemption on hold<\/a>. Despite these setbacks, at little over one year old<\/a>, Defense Distributed has undoubtedly captured attention and had their message heard.
\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Tuesday, September 24, 2013, by Timothy McKeever In March, a post on this blog reported on the story of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed, who, at that time, had created a fully functional lower receiver for an AR-15 assault rifle using a 3-D printer. \u00a0That article discussed the possible need for new regulation to address …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1956"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1956"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1956\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7577,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1956\/revisions\/7577"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1956"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1956"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1956"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}