But that day is a long way off, and it’s possible that homemade guns will never be more than a niche product for hobbyists. And of course, thanks to the NRA and the Republican Party, it’s absurdly easy to get all the guns you want already. At the moment, plastic guns are just a curiosity; the ones that people have made tend to fall apart after firing a shot or two. And it’s already fairly easy to buy almost all the parts to make, say, an AR-15 without going through any background-check process; you’ll just have to get a partially machined lower receiver and do a little milling yourself, if you have the right equipment.<doc-sep>Defense Distributed The 3D-printed gun controversy is fast-paced and oft-changing. Here's a catch up. Cody Wilson, the man at the center of the controversy, resigned Sept. 25 from Defense Distributed, the company that had been distributing downloadable weapons plans for free. His resignation follows his arrest in Taiwan after authorities in Texas charged him for allegedly paying $500 to have sex with a 16-year-old girl. Wilson's lawyers said in an email that they will focus on his case as the company goes forward without him. It's unclear how Wilson's resignation or the criminal charge will impact Defense Distributed but it's unlikely to end the battle over how to handle blueprints for plastic guns. The controversy, which has ebbed and flowed for years, flared up again in July after the State Department settled a lawsuit with Defense Distributed that allowed it to release plans online. That prompted 19 states to immediately file a lawsuit blocking their distribution of the files out of public safety concerns. The states scored an early victory when a Seattle judge issued a temporary restraining order on the distribution of the blueprints. The judge later granted a preliminary injunction until the case is resolved in court. Wilson sought to get around the injunction by selling his gun designs online, rather than giving them away. His website asked for $10 for each blueprint, but let visitors set their own prices. The maneuvering underscores the broader fight that's pitting First and Second Amendment rights protecting free speech and gun ownership against public safety. It also comes amid a broader discussion of gun control in light of an increasing number of public shooting incidents. This isn't a simple case, so CNET's here to break it down for you. So what are 3D-printed guns? As the name implies, they're parts for guns made using a 3D printer and plans created on a computer or downloaded online. The assembled guns are primarily made of plastic but still capable of firing standard handgun rounds. One of the plastic guns requires a nail to serve as a firing pin and a six-ounce piece of steel to trigger metal detectors, whose sole purpose is to prevent the weapon from running afoul of the US Undetectable Firearms Act, which requires firearms can be spotted by a metal detector. Screenshot by Sean Hollister/CNET Wilson initially said he would make such weapons in 2012. The world's first 3D-printed handgun, the Liberator, debuted in May 2013. What exactly can you print? The Liberator is the closest thing to a completely plastic gun, but it still requires a steel nail that serves as the firing pin. Other Defense Distributed blueprints are for the frames of a gun, which are also known as receivers. Receivers aren't the critical parts of a gun, such as bolts, barrels and stocks, according to Popular Mechanics. In other words, you can't simply 3D print a gun and start blasting away. The metal parts of a gun can be created on 3D printers but it's much more expensive. Why are people worried? Theoretically, the guns Wilson's plans make are untraceable. If the metal parts, such as the firing pin, are removed, you could probably put a Liberator in your carry-on luggage and walk through airport security checkpoints. Also, the guns don't have serial numbers -- making them, for all intents and purposes, "ghost guns." Besides that, people don't have to go through a background check to get one, like they'd have to buy a commercial firearm. Authorities are also concerned that criminals could destroy evidence because plastic is easier to destroy than metal. "3D-printed guns represent one dimension of a larger problem of do-it-yourself homemade firearms which is an increasing threat to public safety," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the gun control advocacy organization Violence Policy Center, in an email statement. "It is important that policymakers act now to address this burgeoning threat before it is too late." Who is Cody Wilson? Wilson learned about 3D printers during his second year at the University of Texas Law School in 2012, according to The Washington Post. He was reportedly inspired by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks to create an open-source platform. "We wanted to be the Wiki for guns," Wilson told the Post. Then he reportedly launched Defcad.com, an unregulated file-sharing website that eventually became the first community around 3D printed guns "I think the state should be as weak as possible relative to the individual," Wilson told The New York Times. "The proper posture of the state is one that at least is in fear of its citizen, not one that lords over it." In an email, Wilson told CNET that he had "no concerns regarding public access" to the designs. He also told Ars Technica that he'd been cashing in from selling a tool that lets people make a key gun part out of metal and use that part to build an untraceable firearm. The tool is called the "Ghost Gunner." In 2017, Wilson started Hatreon, a crowdfunding site after neo-Nazi groups got kicked off mainstream sites like Patreon and GoFundMe. Some of the groups turned to Hatreon to finance their cause. Screenshot/Defense Distributed Wilson reappeared in the news last month after he won a settlement with the State Department on the distribution of his blueprints online and said he'd resume publication on Wednesday, Aug. 1. He said he'd make the plans available for anyone to download for free. How does the State Department figure into this? The State Department, currently overseen by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, regulates the exports of defense products in accordance with International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The department became involved with Defense Distributed because its blueprints are available from anywhere over the internet, according to a State Department spokesperson. That prompted a restraining order several months after the Liberator debuted in 2013. The company then removed the files, according to Ars Technica. Defense Distributed didn't give up, right? Yep. Two years later, the company teamed up with the Second Amendment Foundation and sued the State Department, arguing distribution of the gun blueprints was covered by the First Amendment's protection of free speech. In July, the State Department settled, allowing Defense Distributed to freely publish its designs, according to SAF's release. Defense Distributed "The Department of Justice suggested that the State Department and the US government settle this case, and so that is what was done," said Heather Nauert, a spokesperson for the State Department. "We were informed that we would have lost this case in court, or would have likely lost this case in court, based on First Amendment grounds." The Justice Department declined to comment. How do the states play into this? Eight US state attorneys general, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maryland, New York and the District of Columbia, have filed a lawsuit to block the distribution of 3D-printed gun designs online due to a State Department settlement with the gun Wilson and his company Defense Distributed. "This is an imminent threat to public safety and violates the law," Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said in a release. "We have a responsibility to ensure that these files are not made easily available to the public." The states' complaint asks the court to declare the public release of Wilson's 3D-printed gun blueprints is unlawful and prohibit anyone from releasing the designs once the injunction is established. The Trump administration has infringed on their states' exercise of police power and enforcement of public safety laws by letting people prohibited from owning a firearm, including children, felons and the mentally ill, have access to these plans, the attorneys general say. Simultaneously, 20 state attorneys general sent a letter to the State Department and the Department of Justice asking for the same thing. Seattle Federal Judge Robert S. Lasnik granted a temporary restraining order against the 3D-printed gun blueprints. More states have joined the lawsuit against the State Department and Defense Distributed. The suit now has a total of 19 US states as plaintiffs. What was Wilson's response? Wilson started a campaign and fundraiser on his website to unblock Defcad.com.<doc-sep>A legal agreement between the U.S. government and a gun rights organization is setting the stage for the latest skirmish in the wars over gun rights and gun control. The agreement allows the group Defense Distributed to host a collection of files online that can be downloaded and, with the help of a 3D printer, can print the necessary parts to build working firearms. Numerous states are now rushing to ban their residents from downloading the files. Even the President of the United States weighed in. But the truth here is a little murkier than the headlines. What a Gun Is Here's the first thing you need to know: These files are the instructions sets for 3D printing items that are legally considered firearms. But in reality, what they add up to falls far short of an actual, workable gun. When most people think of the word "firearms," they picture complete rifles, shotguns, pistols, and revolvers. Load them with ammunition, pull the trigger, and they fire. But there’s another definition of "firearm." Rather than just buying a whole weapon at a gun store, many gun enthusiasts like to build their guns from the ground up from a collection of parts. Of course, the government must regulate these homemade guns, which is why it classifies their receivers—basically the frame that holds the key parts—as a type of firearm. After all, without the frame you can’t build your firearm. This content is imported from YouTube. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. 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 a nail for a firing pin. The First Amendment vs. the Second 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. For example, the government’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) statute prohibits the transfer of weapons technology abroad without express permission. Hosting the files online allows anyone around the world to download them—a no-no under ITAR. This content is imported from {embed-name}. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. Defense Distributed, on the other hand, claimed that the government violated the First Amendment by preventing them from uploading the files. The State Department, which oversees arms exports, has now decided that the files are exempt from ITAR. Defense Distributed is free to share the files online. The agreement has gun control groups and state and local officials up in arms. “The federal government is trying to allow access to online plans that will allow anyone to anonymously build their own downloadable, untraceable, and undetectable gun,” Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey wrote in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The state of Pennsylvania won a temporary agreement from Defense Distributed to prevent its citizens from downloading the files. The head of the Brady Campaign called the State Department’s decision “bitterly disappointing.” President Trump himself entered the fray, muddying the waters with his own misunderstanding of the issue. (The receivers are neither for sale nor are the resulting guns entirely made of plastic.) The Fourth-Easiest Way To Get a Gun? The 3D printing method isn't even the easiest way to build a firearm--that's accomplished with so-called “80 percent receivers.” That is to say they are about 80 percent of a working receiever, requiring a person to have only a drill press or hand tools, and the requisite DIY skills, to finish the remaining 20 percent. 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. We should absolutely be careful about anything that makes it easier and quicker for people to get their hands on guns. We don't know whether Defense Distributed's file sharing will lead to a meaningful bump in 3D-printed gun crimes, but criminals smart enough to 3D print their own guns are also smart enough to see the shortcomings in the process and find another way to get them. Despite all the fire and fury of the past week, over the long term it’s likely the files will be much more useful to tinkerers and hobbyists operating within the law. This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io<doc-sep>
Gun control is back in the spotlight – this time with a high-tech twist. A federal judge's temporary restraining order aims at blocking plans to upload blueprints necessary for a person to build a plastic weapon in his own home. Here's what we know as the legal battle comes to a head over whether 3D-printed plastic guns will become a reality soon in America: A Texas company had promised to upload instructions at midnight for making 3D-printed plastic guns. What happened? A federal court in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order Tuesday blocking Cody Wilson and his Austin-based Defense Distribution from uploading plans to make 3D-printed firearms from handguns to AR-15 style rifles. In a related development, Wilson agreed to refrain temporarily from releasing the plans under a deal reached with the state of New Jersey. Does that end the issue? No. Both court actions were only temporary, pending hearings in August and September. So, the information is not available pending those decisions? Wilson says it is a moot point. He told CNN on Wednesday that he already had uploaded the plans to the internet a few days ago. "The ship has sailed," he said. "They are public. It is public domain information. It is irrevocable." CNN reports that the information already has been downloaded several thousand times. The Seattle case was brought by eight states and the District of Columbia. Does the judge's ruling affect all 50 states? Yes, pending the court hearings. The judge's order was directed at the federal government, restraining it from enforcing an agreement reached in June that effectively had scrapped an Obama administration decision blocking any such distribution. Can a gun actually be made from plastic based on the plans? Yes, but the printers needed to make the guns can cost $5,000 to $600,000, according to Vice News. The quality of plastic matters, too: An early design printed by federal agents shattered after one shot. A second gun, made from a higher-grade resin, stayed intact. Unlike traditional firearms that can fire thousands of rounds in a lifetime, the 3D-printed guns usually last only a few rounds before they fall apart, experts say. They usually hold a bullet or two and then must be manually loaded. And they’re often not very accurate. Why are states opposed to Defense Distribution's plans? The plastic weapons would be difficult to detect and, with no serial number, impossible to trace. In addition, since theoretically anyone could make them, there would be no way to control the sale of the weapon to felons, mentally ill patients, terrorists or domestic abusers. Why is Wilson pressing the matter? Wilson and his group say there's nothing illegal about giving the public the information they need to make firearms at home. "I believe I am championing the Second Amendment in the 21st century," he said Wednesday in an interview with "CBS This Morning." "I think access to firearms is a fundamental human dignity, fundamental human right." What is the National Rifle Association's position? The NRA said in a statement that “anti-gun politicians” and some members of the news media wrongly claim that 3D-printing technology “will allow for the production and widespread proliferation of undetectable plastic firearms.” In truth, “undetectable plastic guns have been illegal for 30 years,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s political arm. A federal law passed in 1988 – crafted with NRA support – bars the manufacture, sale or possession of an undetectable firearm. In addition, Dana Loesch, a spokeswoman for the NRA, argued that efforts to regulate the technology would be “absolutely unenforceable.” The guns were “what the rest of us call freedom and innovation,” Loesch said in a a video segment posted on NRATV. What is the Trump administration's position? The State Department, responding to a years-long lawsuit against the Obama administration's 2015 blocking of Wilson's distribution of such plans, agreed in June to lift the ban. It argued that the Obama administration erred in ruling that such action violated a federal law known as International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which covers the export of weapons. What is the White House position? Unclear, as White House officials appeared to be caught somewhat off guard by the latest legal maneuvers. In a tweet on Tuesday morning, President Donald Trump said he was "looking into" his administration’s decision last month to clear the way for Wilson’s plans to upload the plans.