Feds drop restrictions on files for 3-D printing certain guns

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
User avatar

Topic author
KLB
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 483
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:57 am
Location: San Antonio

Feds drop restrictions on files for 3-D printing certain guns

#1

Post by KLB » Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:55 pm

"In May 2018, the Trump administration proposed revising revise the ITAR regulations. The move for regulatory reform actually began under the Obama administration, but the proposed reforms were never published. Now they have been. Export controls for many ordinary firearms and accessories will be removed from the ITAR list. Exports of such items will instead by controlled by the Department of Commerce. Among the items remaining under the ITAR system are automatic firearms, firearms of greater than .50 caliberr, magazines with more than 50 rounds, and sound moderators (a/k/a "silencers"). Non-automatic firearms of.50 caliber or less will no longer be covered under ITAR; among the firearms no longer under ITAR is the semiautomatic AR-15 rifle, the most common rifle in American history. Its typical calibers are .223 and .308--well under the new .50+ caliber rule.

"Accordingly, the government defendants revisited the Defense Distributed case. If a particular arm (e.g., the AR-15) is no longer part of ITAR, then it would be illogical for ITAR to be applied to instructions for making the arm. Under today's settlement agreement, plaintiffs and others may freely publish 3D printing instructions for firearms that are not covered under ITAR. Restrictions on distribution of 3D printing information for items that are still under ITAR, such as machine guns or rifles over .50 caliber, remain in place."


http://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/10/us- ... n-on-files

User avatar

TexasJohnBoy
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1915
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Feds drop restrictions on files for 3-D printing certain guns

#2

Post by TexasJohnBoy » Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:44 am

I don't think this sets a legal precedent, but the fact that the state department said that most modern rifles are not inherently military weapons will be referenced in future cases arguing against AWBs and other restrictions.
Significantly, the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber – including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/0 ... t-lawsuit/

I feel like this is kind of a big deal...
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7235
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Feds drop restrictions on files for 3-D printing certain guns

#3

Post by RoyGBiv » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:03 am

TexasJohnBoy wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:44 am
I feel like this is kind of a big deal...
I agree! :patriot:
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 17076
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Feds drop restrictions on files for 3-D printing certain guns

#4

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:42 am

I wonder if this will impact instructions for finishing 80% firearms? This is a separate issue, but the BATFE takes the position that one cannot issue CNC code or even allow someone to use their machines to complete 80% frames, if the machine owner will show them how it's done. This includes manual machines as well as CNC.

Chas.
Image

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 4285
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Feds drop restrictions on files for 3-D printing certain guns

#5

Post by ScottDLS » Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:15 pm

I wonder if it may be an issue of whether helping someone finish an 80% lower is (according to ATF) being in the "business" of manufacturing a firearm This would requiring a Type 07 FFL even for a semi. Whereas making CNC instructions/software available online may be considered exporting military weapons which are ITAR controlled articles. Examples would be full-auto, caliber greater than 50 cal, etc. Dept. of State and DoD regulate ITAR (International Trade in Arms Regulations) where Dept. of Commerce Regulates EAR (Export Administration Regulations). EAR is for dual use items like computers, certain metals, armor plate, etc than can have military AND non-military uses. The ITAR and EAR rules that are being adjusted per the article are separate from the ATF rules as to what constitutes a firearm or the manufacturing thereof domestically.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

User avatar

spectre
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 243
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Feds drop restrictions on files for 3-D printing certain guns

#6

Post by spectre » Sun Jul 22, 2018 3:01 pm

John Lott weighs in. This marks the end of gun control
The federal government has finally recognized the obvious – that sharing instructions on how to make guns with 3D printers counts as constitutionally protected speech. Despite little fanfare, this is an important victory for First Amendment rights. It also represents a real blow to the increasingly futile cause of gun control.
It is understandable that governments want to regulate 3D printing, but gutting the First Amendment is too high a cost. This settlement may bring some awareness to the futility of gun control regulations that only disarm the law-abiding.
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society,
over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it
and a moral code that glorifies it. - Frédéric Bastiat

Post Reply

Return to “Federal”