SCOTUS and "ghost guns"

[Metal god]

My issue is the questioning of time it takes and ease of completion. Where in the constitution does it say if it’s easy to defend your self you no longer are afforded the right to.

Wasn’t it much harder to make a gun 200 years ago then it is today ? State thinks it should take a minimum 8hrs to complete the firearm .

That said the states argument the object has no other use but to be made into a firearm I think is a good one as it relates to the law prior to the new rule . I don’t know why but I’m all of a sudden hungry , I think I’ll go make some eggs , ham and cheeses

[Metal god]

I just finished listening to the whole hearing . How come Bruen never came up in the case . Is it because this is regulatory rather than an actual law ? These regulation are from a law that was enacted mid 20th century . There is clearly no historically similar law nor a tradition of regulating home builds . Why is that not part of the argument ?

[44 AMP]

I just had an omelette and coffee, both of which I made myself. I don't have documents substantiating the ingredients. I don't think that is weird.

IF you bought those items at a grocery store, you got a receipt. IF you didn't keep it (who does??) that's on you.

IF you raised the pigs, cows, chickens, and grew your own coffee, evidence in the form of the animals, their pens and feed, and the field of coffee plants, etc. would be readily available as "proof" you made it ALL yourself.

I don't believe this issue is presented in VanDerStok. In this case, the government's position is that the tools used to create a functional receiver can be regulated by them as if they were a receiver, along with material that is "readily convertible" to a receiver. Essentially, their position is that where Congress said that a frame or receiver is to be regulated as a firearm, what they meant was that other things should also be regulated as firearms if they can be made into a frame or receiver "readily".

I believe you are correct, I have not followed the case in detail, but if they are saying that the TOOLS need to be regulated as if they were a firearm, that's mindboggling. On the other hand, current govt taking existing law and SCOTUS rulings, reinterpreting what was written into what they believe was actually meant is neither new, nor particularly uncommon.

This isn't about keeping receipts for a kit, but what can be treated as a firearm by the federal government.

Correct.

Wasn’t it much harder to make a gun 200 years ago then it is today ?

200 years ago would today be 1824. No electrically powered machinery. ALL tools were powered by wind, water, animal, or by hand. Harder? perhaps. Orders of magnitude more hand labor intensive? Certainly.

Remember that the existing laws regarding making your own firearms were written and passed in an era where such things were only done by a few hobbyists and a small number of custom gunmakers, who turned out, at most only a few guns per year. AND also before the advent of modular, military style firearms, and the availability of pre packaged parts kits for them.

There is a world of difference between the custom gunsmith making perhaps a dozen sporting rifles a year in his home shop with machine tools and the "urban arms dealer" cranking out a dozen AR type guns a week in his condo garage by assembling kits and using a 3d printer to make (some)parts.

State thinks it should take a minimum 8hrs to complete the firearm .

This is a completely arbitrary figure, without any factual basis, and I believe chosen simply for political expediency.

IF I have all the needed tools and skills, and start with unfinished steel, aluminum, wood, or any other materials and make all the parts myself, including making springs and boring and rifling the barrel, it would take months of work to create a finished, functional firearm, working all by myself.

On the other hand, with all the needed tools and skills, using already manufactured parts, and a mostly finished receiver, I could assemble an AR pattern firearm in a couple of hours, or less.

The 8hr number is BS, and meaningless, other than as a standard (and a damn poor one) to use in law. IF it takes you 7:58 to make a gun its illegal, but if it takes you 8:01 its legal? Come on, get real...

Guess the bad guys making guns just need to work a little slower to stay out of jail? I'm sure that will solve a lot of problems!

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Metal God

I just finished listening to the whole hearing . How come Bruen never came up in the case . Is it because this is regulatory rather than an actual law ? These regulation are from a law that was enacted mid 20th century . There is clearly no historically similar law nor a tradition of regulating home builds . Why is that not part of the argument ?

Because the challenge isn't to the GCA and having to use a 4473 when buying from an FFL. It's whether what is being purchased is a firearm receiver.

If what is being regulated isn't a firearm receiver or frame, it wouldn't be protected by Bruen, and if it is a receiver or frame the logic of the challenge doesn't work.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I believe you are correct, I have not followed the case in detail, but if they are saying that the TOOLS need to be regulated as if they were a firearm, that's mindboggling.

Prepare to have it thoroughly boggled. The SG argued that if an 80% receiver or frame comes with a jig as part of kit, then that combination of parts makes having a receiver or frame so nearly accomplished that the two together are subject to regulation as a receiver even if the 80% receiver isn't. That makes the jig effectively subject to regulation as part of a receiver.

This is a completely arbitrary figure, without any factual basis, and I believe chosen simply for political expediency.

The basis for the mention of it in her argument is that she believes the Agency has never prosecuted someone for transfer or possession of a receiver or frame that took fewer than 8 hours to complete.


One of the themes of the SG's argument is a reliance on past agency practice and policy as evidence of constitutionality. I would hope that at least five justices find that argument as unpersuasive as I do.

[44 AMP]

The basis for the mention of it in her argument is that she believes the Agency has never prosecuted someone for transfer or possession of a receiver or frame that took fewer than 8 hours to complete.

wow... isn't that...umm...special...

and wrong...in so many ways...

[Ricklin]

Ghost guns are the latest Cause celeb among the politically elite. Esp. those that would further restrict our constitutional right to bear arms.
3d printers let the genie out of the bottle. It will be interesting to see what they may do as 3d printers that print metal are becoming affordable very quickly.

What now? Will it be similar to the software installed in color printers that will print out the law with regard to counterfeiting should you put a Benjamin on the scanner glass?

As the metal capable 3d printers become commonplace the manufacture of weapons will be further democratized. Absolutely can't be stopped. Are we going to call a halt to technological innovation to "protect the children" I'll be among the first to assure that at least some of the elected meatheads like MTJ will lobby for exactly that.

May you live in interesting times.

[44 AMP]

3d printers that print metal are becoming affordable very quickly.

OK, admittedly I'm not well versed in their capabilities, so I have to ask, can a 3d printer "print" gun steel?? steel that can take the pressures and stresses of firing and operating??

Can they print springs?

Can they temper metal??

They can produce parts that are dimensionally correct, but can they produce parts that are materially correct? Tempered, hardened steel like a gun barrel?

Personally, I think existing law is adequate, and the details of HOW you make a firearm are irrelevant. What matters is the end product and obeying the law.

When people break the law, its the role of govt to find them, catch them, and prosecute them. Making more rules about what you may or may not do with your tools won't change anything, other than to possibly ensnare those who unknowingly break some rules. It will NOT stop, or really affect those people who are breaking the law with criminal intent.

Also, I don't think you can 3d print ammunition, or complex chemical compounds like gunpowder or primers. Those are still going to have to be purchased on the open or black market.
Again. additional regulation of those won't stop the criminal element, either.

[tangolima]

I have a friend who works for Pratt and Whitney. They make aircraft jet engines. The nozzles are 3d printed. The printers they use, are expensive beyond our wildest imagination.

Only the receiver is considered firearm, and not every receiver design need to bear high pressure, AR 15 being an example.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Sharkbite]

They are making suppressors on Metal 3d printers. Pretty high pressures involved there.

[georgehwbush]

may i mention that "every infringement, is an infringement!" the law does not say that the state or any governing body can infringe upon our right to "keep and carry" arms. it says they "can not"

but who care what the law says.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Ricklin

What now? Will it be similar to the software installed in color printers that will print out the law with regard to counterfeiting should you put a Benjamin on the scanner glass?

I can remember that emerging as a story when good color office copiers became ubiquitous. I don't know how effective fake dollars are when not printed on the particular cloth/paper used.

Originally Posted by Ricklin

Ghost guns are the latest Cause celeb among the politically elite. Esp. those that would further restrict our constitutional right to bear arms.
3d printers let the genie out of the bottle. It will be interesting to see what they may do as 3d printers that print metal are becoming affordable very quickly.

In 1968, guns were still made of wood and steel and a machinist was a fellow who took measurements and made cuts using tools and knowledge access to which few had. There were significant non-federal barriers to someone like me making a functioning firearm.

I thought an interesting facet of oral argument was the SG's claim that a kit and jig provide a person with basic tools and little skill a functioning firearm in little time. Respondent's counsel related that a journalist who had asserted the same bought a kit and attempted the "conversion" only to find that he couldn't make it work.

The SG's position has a sort of logic lurking beneath it. There was no such thing as a "readily convertible" frame or receiver when Congress drafted the law on frames and receivers. The exec and agency are just trying to handle the effects of changing technology with the same general goal of the GCA.

Of course, it isn't the exec's place to make or amend laws or to deny people the benefit of advancing technology when practicing their rights.

[44 AMP]

I don't know how effective fake dollars are when not printed on the particular cloth/paper used.

Photocopied or computer printed dollars on the "wrong" paper generally fail to pass a human clerk, but often would fool a vending machine.

There was no such thing as a "readily convertible" frame or receiver when Congress drafted the law on frames and receivers.

As far as I know, there is no actual definition of "readily convertible" in the law, not in terms of time required, or the amount/type of work involved.

What is, and isn't "readily convertible" has, historically, been a decision of the ATF. Numerous guns have had to have been redesigned internally, in order to get the ATF's acceptance for sale on the civilian market.

AND, the ATF has, at various times with certain models, changed their minds about what is and isn't "readily convertible", as well.

One example is the original Cobray pistol. Originally a MAC 10 SMG lookalike, that fired semi auto from an open bolt. ATF allowed it for several years, and then changed their minds and decided it was too "readily convertible" and while existing open bolt guns were grandfathered and allowed to be kept the maker had to redesign the guns to fire from the closed bolt to keep selling new ones.

An example of a gun designed from the get go to avoid being "readily convertible" is the Auto Ordnance 1927 series "Tommy gun" semi auto. Externally nearly identical to the actual SMG, internally quite different. Nearly all the SMG parts were replaced, and the internal dimensions of the receiver were changed, so SMG parts will not fit at all. Even the SMG magazines will not work, in their original configuration.

Since what is, and isn't "readily convertible" seems to be something decided by Federal agency personnel, and NOT by Congress, manufacturers tend to play it safe. more often than not.

The people selling partially finished receivers, and parts kits are NOT selling guns, under existing law, though this particular case seems to be claiming that they are.

[armoredman]

3D metal printed fully functional 45 ACP 1911 made back in 2013. With 11 years to mature the tech in today's world, I'd bet on it being pretty close to something the hobbyist can do, or at least moving that direction.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...r-m1911-pistol

[44 AMP]

Looked at the link, and my main take away is that using the expensive industrial printer AND a laser sintering process, they were able to make a gun that has fired "more than" 50 rounds.

Sintered metal parts are also known as MIM (molded in metal) and currently quality, durability and functionality of those parts varies. Some are good enough for the tasks they are made for, some have not measured up.

No doubt in my mind, that someday, we will have the Star Trek "replicator" tech, that can make a gun, a guitar or "Tea, Earl Grey, hot" and a cup for it in a handful of moments.

Someday. Maybe even before the 23rd century, I can't say. But right now, printing a complete, functional metal firearm is cutting edge tech and not something available to the home hobbyist, yet.

The question is, do we accept laws, passed under the fear of what someone MIGHT DO, to prohibit that tech from regular citizens, possibly for ever??

[Metal god]

The ease to build is totally subjective and an unreasonable argument. I remember in a thread a few years ago we were talking the definition of permanent as it relates to attachments to an AR 15 . Nothing is permanent , If you have the right tools and know how. Just like 3-D printing or milling or you choose your process. It’s only hard if you don’t have the equipment and don’t have the knowledge. I build houses from the ground up for a living , it’s not very hard. Somebody else that doesn’t have my experience or my tools might find building a home quite difficult. or at least a home with the quality I could build it .

That brings me to another point . If these receivers only allowed you to build bolt actions or the quality of them were so bad that you would only get 4, 5 or 6 shots and then you’d have throw it out and build another one . They wouldn’t care . This is completely subjective and I just wish the courts would recognize it.

I’ve been putting some thought to their argument that the item has no other purpose other then being a firearm . Therefore, it’s not like the omelette metaphor where all the other ingredients that make the omelette can be used in other recipes making completely different things . So at what point and or what other purpose must the item have for that argument to no longer be valid. People still use paper weights right ? I think those receivers would make great paper weights. Ok so now it has another function. Even if that doesn’t work, the industry will figure something out that it can be used for, and if there isn’t anything that it can be used for , they will make up something for it to be used for. I just wish these legislatures understood human psychology and the fact that the more you tell a person they can’t have something the more they want it and the more they’ll figure out a way to get it .

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Metal god

I’ve been putting some thought to their argument that the item has no other purpose other then being a firearm .

The utility to which an object may be put is a measure of one's imagination rather than an inherent quality of the object.

The "purpose" (the use to which people imagined it would be put) of old tires used to be to fill giant tire dumps. Now old tires are made into playground surfaces, roads and fuel for high temp power plants.

[Metal god]

^^^^Agreed^^^^

[44 AMP]

there are many different viewpoints, perhaps as many as there are people, or nearly so. The idea that a single person, or a handful of people can decide for the rest of our nation what an object is useful for, and that it is only useful for what they decide, is, frankly, beyond hubris and well into ludicrous. (aka "barking stupid).

First of all, consider "art". What is art? From what I've seen, art is what ever the viewer thinks it is. Personally, I consider some firearms to be objects d' Art. Certainly more so than a picture of a holy icon covered in dung, which, apparently, some people consider "art"...

If they expect me to accept their opinion of what constitutes art, then they damn well better respect my opinion in return.

Next point, about "ease of manufacture"....
a few decades ago, I got a copy of the Army Field Manual covering "Improvised weapons and Explosives".

A truly eye opening publication, from the US govt, and legal for everyone to own. It covers, in detail how to make firearms, ammuntion, and explosives from common "everyday" items.

You can make a crude, but functional firearm without ANY milling, machining, 3D printing. A piece of pipe of the right size, a nail, some wood, a spring or some elastic and a couple of hand tools and elbow grease are all that is needed, IF you can get ammunition. And even ammunition can be made without modern machine tools or advanced chemical processes.

From a mechanical standpoint, the simplest firearm to make is a single shot. The next simplest cartridge firearm to make is actually a submachine gun.

And these can be made without any modern technology or even electricity.

Sure, pushing a button and having a machine make the parts for you to assemble is much less work, but some law banning that doesn't mean functional firearms cannot be made using other methods.

As long as you can buy, make, or steal ammunition, guns can be made to fire it even in primitive villages without electricity or running water. This is a fact that cannot be argued as people have been doing it for centuries.

SO, what exactly is the point of the current frenzy about 3D printers? To harass and restrict people who aren't trying to break the law? Perhaps to show the power and ability of those in authority today? We neither need, nor want that kind of peeing contest, particularly from our government.
The point of our government should be to have law enforcement capture and incarcerate actual criminals, not just pass a law and pretend it will solve the problem, because, it simply won't.

[Ricklin]

The march of technology will not slow because the government says it should not be employed to make certain objects.
Next up will be legislation on what files we might be allowed to have on our computers. Oh wait, that genie is already out.....
At the end of the day, it is all ones and zeros and can not be stopped or even slowed down a little.

[44 AMP]

while technology marches on, what the govt will allow you to legally DO with that tech is in the hands of the legislators, or worse, unelected bureaucrats in various govt agencies.

I remember hearing, some time back about a student, (might have been at CalTech, I don't remember), who literally as a project, built an atomic bomb.

And, it would have worked, too! IF he had the special nuclear material to put in it, which, he didn't. (and couldn't legally get, so he didn't try)

Govt sent some people to "talk to him" I think they wanted to prosecute, but there was no case, ALL the information he used to make his "bomb" was in the public domain, and had been for decades.

The principles of nuclear weapons were taught in high school half a century ago...

Point here is that even if the information or the tech is out there to own, legally, what you DO with it is still under govt control and can be restricted or prohibited by law, or regulation.

And there is a potential catch-22 in that the govt may prosecute you (and possibly successfully) because of your intent, not your actual actions.

There was a case years ago where some would be terrorists went to jail for making a bomb, but the bomb didn't go off, and couldn't go off because one of their group was a govt agent and he supplied them with "explosives" that were inert. They didn't know that, and built their bomb with every intention and expectation of it exploding, and for that, they got convicted.

There are enough common materials in nearly every household in America that a person with the skill, could make an explosive device from. No one gets prosecuted unless, by intent, they actually try to make one.

You can have your 3D printer, and while I'm not sure if the govt can restrict what programs/information you may possess (where does Freedom of Speech apply??) they can, and do have the authority to regulate what you can MAKE with it.

This is part of the issue of "ghost guns" (damn I hate that term, but it is what's in use,,,). Existing laws were set up long ago, when guns had to be made by machines with skilled operators (or by hand with a skilled craftsman doing it) not just pushing a button or two, and they allowed you to make guns (or nearly anything else) by yourself, for your own use.

When those guns left your possession (and entered the commercial market) then the rules covering them changed. I don't have any issues with that.

What I do object to is people (thought the use of the govt) who want a "pre-emptive strike" by legally prohibiting or restricting what you are allowed to make, for yourself BECAUSE it MIGHT get into the illegal market and people MIGHT do bad things with it.

The way I see it, either we are children or we are adults, each individually responsible for our acts. I don't see it both ways, its one, or the other, and if we are adults (which I believe we are) then govt should get the hell off our butts and also get off their butts and do something that actually might be useful, like catching the people who are shooting other people for fun or profit and removing them from society.

I know, its probably just a dream, but I can still dream, (or has the nanny state outlawed that too??) can't I??

[armoredman]

I remember that one - he turned in his paper and wondered why he didn't get his back with everyone else, and was told it was now classified! Whoops.

[44 AMP]

A friend called me last night, and gave me chapter an verse on the incident, including that there was a book and even a movie done about it.

Included in what he told me was the reason the kid didn't get his paper back, it was the university policy. Apparently anything turned in that looked like it would be dangerous (such as a bomb) and looked like it would work, the paper was kept by the school and the authorities contacted so they could determine what, if any, legal action was required.

He also told me the kid got an A on the paper, which brought his overall grade up to a C. and, that his happened back in the 70s. I thought it was more recent, but all I could recall were general details.

[DaveBj]

A couple decades ago I read the text of an interview with Tom Clancy in which he said that when he was doing the research for his novel The Sum of All Fears, he was amazed at how much information on the construction of a Bomb was out there in plain sight. He also said that when he was writing the narrative of the construction process, he left some things out.

D

[44 AMP]

In the afterword to Sum of All Fears Clancy states he intentionally left some of the process out, so he could not be accused of providing instructions for making a functional device.

I spent over 30 years working as a certified fissile material handler and spent nearly half that time in a plutonium production plant. What Clancy put in his novel is essentially accurate, but he didn't put everything needed in his book.

I thought a rather smart idea, all things considered.

[Jim Watson]

Reminds me of ‘Uller Uprising’ by H. Beam Piper.
A historical romance set in the Manhattan Project of 450 years earlier had blueprints on the endpapers that the Terrans needed.