Bill Regulating 3D Printed Guns Announced In NYC 322
New submitter BioTitan writes "New York City may be the first state to crack down on 3D printed guns. Two pieces of legislation were introduced on June 13, one in the City Council that only allows licensed gunsmiths to print the guns, and another in the State Assembly that would make it illegal for anyone to print a gun. Cody Wilson, creator of the first 3D printed guns, and founder of Defense Distributed, told The Epoch Times, 'Such legislation is a deprivation of equal protection and works in clear ignorance of Title I and II of U.S. gun laws.'"
to be expected (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm yet to hear/see/read reports of self-injuries/deaths cause by exploding plastic guns, and the very existence of the Darwin awards shows that stupidity in not as rare in this world as one (still Bloomberg?) would like us to think.
Re:to be expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:to be expected (Score:5, Funny)
Good thing that the terr'ists won't be able to print 3D guns now, then, thanks to this law.
Re:to be expected (Score:4, Interesting)
Is there fundamentally any reason why these couldn't be made with some material other than a metal? I mean once upon a time armour was steel, but now Kevlar can be used. Planes were aluminium but now carbon fibre can be used. Jet engine turbines are ceramic, etc. I'm not suggesting any of these particular materials are the right ones for this case, and indeed it might be a composite. But it doesn't seem impossible to do away with the last bits of metal, if someone wanted to do that.
Re: (Score:3)
A firing pin needs to be quite rigid in order to detonate the percussion cap that is the primary explosive in modern ammo. Realistically, ceramic would work fine for a zip gun that's only safe for (about) 1 shot in the first place.
On the other hand, a flintlock or matchlock would need no such metal parts. Keep your power dry boys, and don't go off half-cocked.
Re: (Score:3)
There are synthetic materials that can probably do the trick. How about synthetic diamond? Firing pins are tiny, and well within the capabilities of synthetic industrial diamond production.
Re:to be expected (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:to be expected (Score:5, Informative)
Making anyone with a printer a "gunsmith" is just plain irresponsible.
You probably have a mistaken understanding of how difficult it is to make a gun at home with quite basic machining equipment. Here's a detailed photo-record from a guy who legally made an AK-47 from a shovel [northeastshooters.com]. Making an AR-15 (requires much more accurate tolerances) is a bit harder, but most cities have machine shops that regularly provide "maker spaces" (to use the geek term) for doing it right, to high precision.
A 3D printer will make a crappy zip gun. Very primitive metalworking tools will make a working AK-47. A CnC milling machine will make a perfectly fine assault rifle: insert billet, run program. The part of the gun that is legally the gun is the lower receiver, which while difficult to invent is still just a piece of metal. An assault rifle "kit" will include a well-made piece of metal that, with a few holes drilled in the right places, becomes a lower receiver. The rest of the kit is legally irrelevant.
3D printing a lower receiver is new and therefore scary to our rulers, but has little practical application. There's already a legal framework (IANAL, know your local laws) that allows you to buy an "almost" receiver, drill a few holes in the right places, and now you have what is legally a gun. You can't legally sell it - because now it's a gun - but you can legally make and own it (in many places, anyway).
TLDR: the work needed to transform a piece of metal from not-legally-a-gun to legally-a-gun is "precisely drill a few holes". 3D printing is difficult and expensive by comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
People tend to forget that, as much as we would like to believe otherwise, our elected officials are neither evil nor stupid. They are, however, generally aware of what might help or hurt their chances of keeping their jobs, a
Re: (Score:3)
> Making anyone with a printer a "gunsmith" is just plain irresponsible.
Currently, anyone without a 3D printer can be a gunsmith, so what's your point?
SO very dumb (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As concealable as a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, the 3d printed guns aren't 100% 3d printed, you can't use plastic for all of it. Second, they work once or twice before they break down. Third, they have a high chance of exploding in your hand. Lastly, have you seen one? I'd be more scared of someone holding a lego gun. Actually, it kinda looks like it's made of lego.
Your information is old.
Since the first guy published his "printed gun" improvements have been made. Interchangeable multi-shot barrels and plastic springs for magazines have both been done.
Not reliable yet by any means, but things are progressing very fast.
An innovative designer could make a receiver for a pipe-shotgun with quick change barrels and as long as the pipe was long enough it would be legal.
The days of "control" over this stuff have slipped away.
State? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
"New York City may be the first state"? Thats like watching a game show where the contestant is asked for a country in Europe that is fancy and them saying London or Paris.
I did have an american ask me is Wales was a city in London a few years ago (and yes, he was dead serious...)
Printing Guns (Score:3)
Well well. So there is this piece of legislation that will make it illegal to 3d-print a gun.
So now I wonder, what is and whether it will be altered or 'revised', the definition of: Gun. One needs not a gun to harm someone else. Illegalising the 3d-printing of Guns as we now think of guns, will only add one more law to the ocean of Laws and will only marginally solve the problem it is setting out to solve.
But... *COMPUTERS*! (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing I can't legally do? Sell them.
So I could legally manufacture a more-or-less perfect replica of the gun used in Newtown. But New York gets its knickers in a knot over someone printing out a single-shot low-pressure piece of crap?
Dear politicians - We all know you couldn't think your way out of a paper bag. But can you at least prioritize the crap on which you waste our tax dollars?
Re:But... *COMPUTERS*! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually you can sell them once you no longer want them. You can't make them with the intent to sell, but you can use sale as a method to dispose of them when you are done with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In general, sure. When it comes to doing things explicitly banned by the US constitution, not so much, because it means you and I, in other states, will have to pay to process this BS through the federal court system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But... *COMPUTERS*! (Score:5, Insightful)
But can you at least prioritize the crap on which you waste our tax dollars?
Don't worry, they do. It's just that your choice of priority depends on your final goal.
If your goal is a reduction in gun violence, you might prioritize efforts to reduce poverty, unemployment, and parents lacking time to be parents.
If your goal is to ban firearms, you prioritize the efforts which are achievable in small bite-sized portions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So I could legally manufacture a more-or-less perfect replica of the gun used in Newtown.
I'm pretty sure you couldn't, certainly not without about ten years of practice and $100K worth of equipment. Of course after all that time and practice you'd probably be considerably wiser and realise that there's no point.
Re: (Score:3)
An actual clone of a Bushmaster
A crude-but-functional high(er than
New York City is not its own state (yet) (Score:5, Informative)
The whole reason 3D printed guns were invented, (Score:2)
was to circumvent crap like this. 2nd amendment protection, even when it's being attacked aggressively.
What is the difference between the two? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is a weapon that doesn't follow the "normal" market chain.
So they also should regulate, say, hand made knives, archery and even deadly traps.
It looks to me just like a govt response to a buzzword. Just to let people know "we are watching over you".
Doesn't matter (Score:5, Interesting)
The point of 3D printed guns is to be able to ignore such legislation if need be. In general, such laws could be anticipated, but are known to be mostly irrelevant.
To put this into another perspective - its currently illegal to download pirated music and movies off the internet. Not proposed legislation, not "we're thinking about it" - it's already 100% against the law. How effective is that?
Another example: its current illegal in nearly every state to possess, grow, or smoke marijuana - yet a significant chunk of the population ends up trying it at some point because when you get right down to it, the shit grows out of the fucking dirt.
3D printed guns are much the same. They're there not just to make it easy to make a gun, but to make laws against it ineffective. The government and politicians can stamp their feet, pound their gavel, and pass whatever laws they way - but if We The People still want a gun, we'll have them - and there's nothing they can do about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing Is, I can make a metal handgun faster than anyone can 3d print one. and that is using common hand tools. No the barrel will not be rifled, but that does not matter if you are within a few yards of your target. IF you have advanced tools like a drill press with a XY table, you can actually machine parts to make a semi auto from blocks of metal.
Batshit Crazy (Score:2)
Don't forget - the batshit crazy folks have a right to print guns too...because...well they have a right to protect themselves just like the rest, don't they?
Oh, like this will work (Score:2)
This will work.
Why? Because the sort of person who would shoot school children or rob a convenience store will of course obey these laws.
NYC ran by morons... (Score:2)
Instead of dealing with the problem they just do the ban everything method. Perfect for the no IQ crowd like the leaders of NYC..
Why don't they talk to large city leaders elsewhere about what works? They are simply doing what Chicago does, and Chicago is a complete failure.
the end game here is (Score:2)
i can see the headline on Slashdot in 2018ish
"First all 3d printed gun test fired 10k rounds"
Yesterday Crunktech successfully fired the Liberator V6 with 10k rounds. This was made possible by use of the new Super Goop with microwave activated hardening..."
but these PoliCritters need to understand the following
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Re: (Score:3)
Tempest in a Teapot (Score:3)
No gunsmith or criminal in his right mind would want a 3D rapid prototype "printed" gun.
Any sane criminal wants a real top notch machined steel gun that WORKS every time the trigger is pulled. And that criminal knows how to buy or steal one in an hour or two versus many days for a 3D RP gun (& I don't understand what they use for a barrel, unless they use laser sintered stainless steel or titanium for the barrel and then finish machine it or it will be truly worthless in aim and firepower.)
I can't PRINT it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Geez, if I can't print a shitty zip-gun, I guess I'll just have to take 5 mins to MAKE one out of some pipe, a rubber band, a tack, and if I'm feeling fancy, wood for a handle.
Certainly none of these is available at the local hardware store!
I feel safer already.
Fucking morons.
Re:It's incredible to me (Score:5, Funny)
They will be laughing on the other sides of their faces when Obama's storm troopers round them up and ship them to a FEMA camp.
Why should I worry? It's not like the government is tracking every website I visit and every person I talk to, how would they know if I've even downloaded this liberator gun, much less made one?
(oh wait...)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's incredible to me (Score:4, Interesting)
How can you be certain that TOR isn't compromised? I admit that it's a paranoid view to have, but TOR is a very tempting target and lately the paranoid are being proved right on a daily basis.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Previously, thinking the government was secretly recording all our call and network connection information was "a paranoid view to have." Not sure that's still true.
Similarly, the view you put forth may be paranoid today, but it might be validated in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
TOR is subject to a MIM attack - always has been, always will be. There may or may not be some back door, but if gubbermint is monitoring the internet backbone, then they ARE the MIM.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A large number of atheists are libertarian, not leftist. We leave all religions behind, including the religions of the left and right, which, like any good religion, foists groupthink for the purpose of seizure of power for the leaders.
As with more normal religions, the best policy is to let people be free.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a Libertarian, I find Libertarians defy most stereotypes. I do say, the Libertarian version of Atheism is much better than the leftist Atheists. Leftist Atheists have replaced GOD with Government as the all powerful being, and that is pretty scary concept. Libertarian Atheists tend towards not giving a shit what others believe and want to be left alone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's incredible to me (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not an Atheist. Libertarian Atheists don't care what I believe. And I don't care what Atheists believe. Leftwing Atheists would rather I not exist, as my belief somehow threatens them. They end up doing things like Jewish Purge of Soviet Union (killing Jews because they are religious), or persecution of the Falun Gong and Christians in China, if they had their way. Atheistic Socialistic States and those of faith don't mix.
The state should be agnostic towards religion (or lack thereof). First Amendment Style.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm an Atheist Libertarian and I don't speak for anyone but myself. The only request I have of other people is that they stop taking my money and forcing my actions. I don't understand what's so wrong with that policy. When you say humanist, what you mean is forcing charity. I want to help people, but I don't want to be forced to help people that don't want help.
Re:It's incredible to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's always funny to see someone suggest that libertarianism eschews religion. Particularly when they conflate political leanings with religious tendencies. Freedom is no less religious than any other political dimension. Pragmatism and many-voice democratism are the only irreligious politics.
Re:It's incredible to me (Score:5, Insightful)
"going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special"
Logical Fallacy. It gives you more protection than having NOTHING, except the broken promises of the government protecting you. And we are seeing exactly how much the government protects you, even as it invades every aspect of your life. But being a good leftist, you must not protest government intrusions into your everyday life, for that is exactly what you're asking for.
Government regulation is government power, more regulation means government has more power. Don't complain when wake up and have no power to stop the government. That is the whole reason for the 2nd Amendment. Power corrupts and all that.
"Trust us, we're from the Government"
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that one can be a good leftist and anti-government or pro-small-government, don't you?
I'm anti-government, but I'm also anti-capitalism (a very clear sign that the person is likely to be a good leftist).
Re:It's incredible to me (Score:4, Insightful)
How is that? How does a "Left wing" enforce their social economic government structure without a strong powerful government behind it?
You're probably not anti-capitalist, you're probably anti-corporatist, which is different, but looks remarkably similar. Do you believe a committee should tell you how much you should be paid, and how hard you should work and what job you should do? If you say no to each of those, you're a capitalist.
Re: (Score:3)
At any rate, where were the second amendment activists with the patriot act or prism? It seems to me that most gun activists define "tyranny" as "gun control," nothing more and nothin
Re: (Score:3)
Guns are a false hope in defending against any tyrannical government.
Name one tyranny that allows for the people to be armed. Just one.
And why are we arming Syrian Rebels if guns are a false hope against Tyranny?
Do you realize that tyrannies form only when the people are disarmed. And do not forget, Hitler was elected to office, so I do not trust the Soap, or Ballot boxes for obvious reasons (GWB, BHO) . I don't trust the Jury box for the similar reasons. Guns are the last but necessary resort.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know someone has no basis for their argument when they go to nukes. It's the Hitler of gun debate.
Re: (Score:3)
You have quite an imagination. over a million times a year good people use guns to discourage attacks, usually without a shot fired. The family dog alerts about intruders even before they get close enough to house to touch it. In store robberies, sometimes guns help and sometime they don't. But people have a right to have a chance to defend themselves. Usually the bad guy in mass shooting is quite easy to identify, read the recent news accounts.
Funny you bring up placed where armed citizens are giving
Re:It's incredible to me (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're insane for thinking a gun is going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special
What are you talking about? Firearms are literally the best thing for defense from armed assailants.
I don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun,
Then it is clear that you do not have a very good understanding of the Constitution.
Re:It's incredible to me (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun
Ahh my favorite argument from people who don't understand this little clause:
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If the Constitution doesn't say anything about it, that implies it's might right and the government cannot restrict it. However in practice I realize the government could give two shits about the Constitution.
Re:It's incredible to me (Score:5, Insightful)
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Nothing about "guns", nothing about "owning"
"Arms" = guns, or more generally any weapon which would typically be carried by infantry. (Yes, this means the amendment is specifically referring to military weapons, not hunting weapons.)
"keep" = own
"bear" = carry in public
The words may be a bit unfamiliar after a few hundred years, but the meaning is obvious to anyone who cares to undertake some honest research.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking as a leftist of a stripe, we're not. Seriously. Don't get me wrong, I think you're insane for thinking a gun is going to give you any protection from anyone armed with more than a saturday night special, don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun, and don't like you personally (for trolling), but I'm actually mad that Obama et al are wasting political capitol on gun control.
Just wait until the current president is voted out of office and the next republican is in office. You will be doubly-sorry this stuff was started then when it's used to chase down and out women who have had abortions, people that don't go to church, and all kinds of other sinners.
Who's got guns won't matter when the feds decide to use information to destroy you. Gonna shoot back at a web page with your mom's three abortions listed on it? HA!
Your disregard for portions of the Constitution will cause t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia
see definition 2.
A militia is the constitutional sense is a voluntary force called up from the citizens who bring their own guns and resources (cloths food etc). Please go back and review the revolutionary war. Go see wh
Re: (Score:3)
don't think the constitution says anything about you individually having the right to own a gun
Many gun control proponents read the 2nd amendment that way, and on its surface its not hard to read it that way. But the Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton) go into more detail about what was intended; that both "regulated militias" and individual gun ownership rights are necessary as protection from government tyranny:
It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power....To oblige the great body of the yeo
Re: (Score:3)
The real point of the 2nd Amendment was two fold. First of all, it openly acknowledged that the real justification and authority of government is derived from the arms that government is able to field. If you start to defy that government, you rather quickly get a show of arms of some manner which reminds you who has the real authority. Allowing ordinary citizens to possess those arms sort of levels that playing field.
The other is a more general theme that is pervasive throughout the U.S. Constitution, w
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Rifles have been used quite effectively against U.S. troops operating in foreign countries, sometimes bring down helicopters too. The Supreme Court disagrees with your Constitutional interpretation, it is personal right.
Obama is wasting capital on something even half his party supports, even his wife says *she* would want sufficient protection were she to live in rural area, and Bill Clinton warned him about that crowd. listen to Michael, Barack, she's more common sense than you
Re: (Score:2)
For home defense I have a mental map of my house can find my way round in the dark and will use that and whatever blunt object is closest to me. If there's more than 1 intruder I wouldn't want to risk one getting away because he heard me shooting.
I'm like that really rare watch dog, you won't know I'm there until you are fully
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's incredible to me (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's incredible to me (Score:4, Insightful)
You're really pushing this point hard. Sure, the 2nd Amendment could be repealed, assuming anyone was willing to commit political suicide by proposing the repeal of anything in the Bill of Rights, and that three-quarters of the states were willing to ratify the change. That isn't going to happen any time soon.
Anyone in the USA who opposes any change to the second amendment but drinks alcohol is a morally bankrupt hypocrite not worth listening to, which I would imagine is most of them.
This is simply idiotic. Opposing any change to the 2nd Amendment does not equate to opposing the amendment process itself. The fact that the capacity exists to repeal the 2nd Amendment does not automatically make it a good idea. You're just looking for any excuse to tune out those who disagree with you by casting them as hypocrites.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: It's incredible to me (Score:4, Interesting)
You're probably thinking of the rules against murder, which doesn't include all killing. For example, the Old Testament Law gave parents explicit permission to kill their perpetually disobedient children, and God often told them to kill all the women and children when they conquered a city. Jesus took the stance against murder even further by denouncing all hatred for others, and requiring his followers to love everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
> Isn't there some pretty big rule in the bible about not killing, or have you justified that away in your
> world of irrationality?
As an atheist, I don't give two shits what is in the bible but, you seem to be conflating the immorality of killing a human being outside of self defence with ownership and production of tools which are, quite rarely used for such things.
This would be kind of like confusing buying/making/owning a hammer with building a house. I own lots of hammers, never built a house thou
Re: (Score:3)
If you're so fucking worried about children, ban pools and 5 gallon buckets. You'll save a fuckton more children that way. The only reason your lefty schizo buddy Loughner was able to get a gun was because the mental health system failed. Same with Lanza. Both of them were beyond the stage of paranoid schizo where they should have been forcible committed. Also, why is it that all the mass shooters lately have lefty tendencies?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is what I don't understand. Why do we need separate laws about 3D printed guns? Surely if you're not a licensed gunsmith you can't legally make a gun, whatever the particular tools you use to do it?
that's how it is in most of the western world.
however, usa is an exception and it's legal for anyone to make a gun(provided the gun isn't particularly advanced, but still). that's how there can be a place for this law, but it makes little sense in the overall context of new york being situated inside usa.
Re:Fear and Ignorance (Score:5, Informative)
9. May I lawfully make a firearm for my own personal use, provided it is not being made for
resale?
Firearms may be lawfully made by persons who do not hold a manufacturer’s license under the GCA
provided they are not for sale or distribution and the maker is not prohibited from receiving or
possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semiautomatic
rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as set forth in regulations in 27 C.F.R. 478.39. In
addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF. An
application to make a machinegun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing
that the firearm is being made for the official use of a Federal, State, or local government agency (18
U.S.C. 922(o),(r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 C.F.R. 478.39, 479.62, and 479.105).
Source: https://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/industry/0501-firearms-top-10-qas.pdf
Re: (Score:2)
Is this actually true, or is it that you need to be a licensed gunsmith to *sell* a gun (but making one for yourself is totally legal)?
Honest question; I don't know anything about American gun laws...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Is this actually true, or is it that you need to be a licensed gunsmith to *sell* a gun (but making one for yourself is totally legal)?
Honest question; I don't know anything about American gun laws...
When trying to understand US laws, keep in mind that one of the founding principles of the US was that it was to be a collection of semi-sovereign states. As such, the states have great authority at shaping their own laws.
So to answer your question... it depends on which state you are in when you want to sell
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the USA, anyone can make a gun, perfectly legal gun. You can make them all you want, you just can't sell them. THAT takes a firearm license. But when everyone can make a gun, the idea of gun registration (for the purposes of selling them) becomes useless. Guess what, gun laws are going to change, and they are going to effectively repeal the 2nd Amendment, without the formality of doing so, because people are scared of things that make loud noises.
The fact that more people died at the hands of hammers and
Re: (Score:2)
If I took the corner in third, I'd make it round at about 50km/h with maybe a tiny bit of tyre noise but no loud revving. Even though I was going fa
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Guns are not solely created and bought to shoot people specifically. For my own use can be anything from shooting cans to hunting for food or animal population control.
Re:Fear and Ignorance (Score:4, Insightful)
I think "for your own use" means the same thing that it means in relation to the other two categories of things that the ATF cares about. You can have and make alcohol [beer...not liquor], tobacco [products], and firearms [as long as they're not fully automatic machine guns], it's when you start selling them that oversight gets intrusive.
Gun restriction law is in-and-of-itself perverse (as are the other two categories above). Prohibition's success rate for gun manufacture is only high due to the barrier to learning the process. 3-D printing is getting so much attention because now people who are frightened of guns (instead of people) realize they could be produced without complete government oversight and accountability.
I'm not especially worried about it because the people I'm likely to get shot by will have guns whether there is 3-D printing or not. Banning 3-D printing just means they're more likely to have a reliable gun.
Re: (Score:2)
While the NRA spends quite a bit and does a good job protecting gun rights, its important to remember that they are financed by large arms manufacturers. They probably wont lobby as hard for your ability to print your own guns.
Actually, that will be an interesting thing to watch. Which way will the NRA fall on this (and similar) issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:NRA (Score:4, Informative)
According to FactCheck.org, nearly half of the funding for the NRA comes from membership dues alone. Voluntary donations to the NRA, however, still account for a majority portion of the remaining funding.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/23929/10-surprising-facts-about-the-nra-that-you-never-hear [policymic.com]
Re:NRA (Score:4, Informative)
The NRA is completely on board with legal homemade guns, and membership dues and advertisements are the majority of their income.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances_and_organizational_structure
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I think Mr. Wilson could have calculated the likely outcomes better than he apparently did. On the one hand, the environment around Newtown, the Boston bombings, an endless stream of kids-shooting-siblings on the news, etc etc creates a favorable moment in legislative (sp?) history for getting gun control enacted. Everyone on that side of the fence wants to see some, any, tangible results. On the other hand, the NRA really is funded largely by gun manufacturers - these guys have no manifest interest
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's federal law. State and city law can be more restrictive.