Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts United States

US Court Says 'Ghost Gun' Plans Can Be Posted Online (apnews.com) 287

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Plans for 3D-printed, self-assembled "ghost guns" can be posted online without U.S. State Department approval, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. From a report: A divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reinstated a Trump administration order that permitted removal of the guns from the State Department's Munitions List. Listed weapons need State Department approval for export. In 2015, federal courts applied the requirement to weapons posted online and intended for production on 3D printers, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. However, three years later the State Department under then-President Donald Trump settled a lawsuit by a 3D gun company and ordered their removal.

California, 21 other states and the District of Columbia sued and a federal judge in Seattle issued an injunction last year, saying that posting the designs without restrictions could put unregistered weapons into the hands of terrorists. In overturning the injunction, the appellate panel found 2-1 that a 1989 federal law prohibits courts from overruling the State Department's decision to add or remove a weapon from the Munitions List, the Chronicle reported.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Court Says 'Ghost Gun' Plans Can Be Posted Online More

US Court Says 'Ghost Gun' Plans Can Be Posted Online

Comments Filter:

  • Metallica did a really nice job of preventing their music on Napster. I'm sure banning gun STLs would be just as effective.

    3D printed guns are inferior to normal guns. I say let the terrorists have them.

    I'd be more worried about some kid shooting up his school with them, but I don't think banning the designs is the right way to accomplish that.

    • What's interesting is that the actual decision seems to be limiting court overreach; it says that the courts can't overrule federal law.

      I find the first amendment more interesting: do individuals have a first amendment right to speech which tells people how to make guns? Apparently they did not rule on that.

      • I find the first amendment more interesting: do individuals have a first amendment right to speech which tells people how to make guns?

        I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the original case that was settled before this, basically conceded that the files for printing gun parts was speech and therefore protected.

        I mean, for instance, you can print a book that tells you how to make a nuclear weapon if you like.

        I believe the same has been often ruled about computer code...whether source or mac

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by XXongo ( 3986865 )

          I find the first amendment more interesting: do individuals have a first amendment right to speech which tells people how to make guns?

          I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the original case that was settled before this, basically conceded that the files for printing gun parts was speech and therefore protected.

          Apparently not. If that were the case, then there would be no need for a court to rule that "Plans for 3D-printed, self-assembled "ghost guns" can be posted online without U.S. State Department approval" because it would already have been decided.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jythie ( 914043 )
          Where this gets tricky is the the whole 'export' thing. There are rules about what you can and can not export to other countries, and a lot of stuff, including IP, requires a special license and documentation, if you are going to be making it available outside the US. This has become a real mess since the internet took off, but the rules are still there and courts are struggling to deal with.

          But to address your point, there are restrictions, even on things like books, source, or machine code. I work on

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z80a ( 971949 )

      Two steel pipes and a nail and you got a shotgun of sorts.

  • Back in the 80s when BBSing was a thing, I saw a file titled "Terrorist's Handbook", which had sections on everything a terrorist would want to do, including making bombs and stuff. It was written by someone who went to MIT or some other notable place and then had an "accident" with a bomb that wasn't made by him. Should a file like that be banned?

    I can see the point in banning it, but I always fall back to "If someone sets their mind to do something, they'll do it." Child porn is illegal, but there's st

    • > Should a file like that be banned?

      Censorship is never the solution. It is precisely the problem.

      Education is solution.

    • If allowing them online, but a law requires it to have a manufacturer, serial-number, and registration -- I can see the inevitable long discussion of "what is a gun" that is subject to this law. Water gun? A device that can projectile a small stone? metal dust in a woven encasement? solid fragments? Is there some arbitrary cutoff where a metal projectile is large enough? Is it a specific piece that creates the distinction? ... Society hasn't had time to debate the minutia.

      By definition, as the fea

      • Arms like pistols, rifles, shotguns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, destructive devices, explosives, and *any other weapons* (AOW) are all clearly defined in current US law. Firearms and other arms that fall outside of those definitions are not subject to regulation, like smooth bore muskets and cap/ball revolvers

        • Thank you for this comment. Not being a gun person -- my quick attempt to find a legal definition was not terribly fruitful. With your terminology, I managed to find broad applicable sections of CFR and USC. I'll have to spend some time reading up on what the definitions actually are.

          It sounds like that at least covers broad classifications of weapon are covered; in which each can be regulated as appropriate.

      • The ATF makes the determination of what is or isn't a firearm and they typically aren't open to much "discussion". Once they make that determination that is the part that is required to carry a serial number, requires a Firearms Manufacturer license to produce commercially, an FFL to sell commercially, etc.

        For example, the part of a Glock that the ATF considers a firearm is the plastic frame. A person can buy every part other than that....the slide, the barrel, the fire control group, etc. from any rando

    • Back in the 80s when BBSing was a thing, I saw a file titled "Terrorist's Handbook", which had sections on everything a terrorist would want to do, including making bombs and stuff. It was written by someone who went to MIT or some other notable place and then had an "accident" with a bomb that wasn't made by him. Should a file like that be banned?

      Dunno. Is the book currently available on Amazon? Slightly different title, but:

      https://www.amazon.com/Anarchi... [amazon.com]

      I can see the point in banning it, but I always fall back to "If someone sets their mind to do something, they'll do it." Child porn is illegal, but there's still a market for it, and this will be no different.

      It's bad enough a "market" exists for child porn. Don't make it worse by conflating a legal requirement for a serial number on an otherwise legal object, with child abuse. It's not like you're going to convert child porn to be socially acceptable by adding credits and a director.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bodie1 ( 1347679 )

        No, but it would make it easier to find them so I can shoot them with my "ghost" gun!

        • No, but it would make it easier to find them so I can shoot them with my "ghost" gun!

          OK, fair point.

          Hell, I'd even make the gun legal for that.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cob666 ( 656740 )
        The Terrorist's Handbook' is a somewhat derived from the Anarchist's Cookbook.
        I used to run a BBS in the 90s and sure enough, I had a copy of The Cookbook in my fileshare.

        Back in the 80s when BBSing was a thing, I saw a file titled "Terrorist's Handbook", which had sections on everything a terrorist would want to do, including making bombs and stuff. It was written by someone who went to MIT or some other notable place and then had an "accident" with a bomb that wasn't made by him. Should a file like that be banned?

        Dunno. Is the book currently available on Amazon? Slightly different title, but:

        https://www.amazon.com/Anarchi... [amazon.com]

        I can see the point in banning it, but I always fall back to "If someone sets their mind to do something, they'll do it." Child porn is illegal, but there's still a market for it, and this will be no different.

        It's bad enough a "market" exists for child porn. Don't make it worse by conflating a legal requirement for a serial number on an otherwise legal object, with child abuse. It's not like you're going to convert child porn to be socially acceptable by adding credits and a director.

    • The Anarchist Cookbook when through this ban and not based thing. It's simply an attempt to make knowledge illegal and control thought.
    • Sorry but the law already states you DONT. it isnt that there is an absence of a law. Its in contradiction to what they legally can do. The 10th amendment bans the federal government from enumerating powers to itself not already laid out in the constitution. This why the 18th amendment came into action because they had no power to regulate alcohol. Not only is the authority not enumerated to them, the 2A outright bans it. So in 1968 they got clever, knowing there was no chance of 75% of all states ratifying

    • The solution may be to allow the plans to be made available online, but pass a law (if there aren't any on the books already), that if you make one, it has to have a "manufacturer" and a serial number and it has to be registered.

      Even guns you buy from the store are not registered (they have a background check done but the gun model/serial number is never transmitted to the NICS system to link a specific individual to the gun). Making homemade guns require that would be stupid.

      Plus just think about the reality of it: requiring that would just put further burdens on people who are going to grunt in frustration but comply - eg, the law abiding masses. People who were going to use the gun for a crime or murder are just going to print

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jythie ( 914043 )
      I think a key point though is that people are, well, kinda lazy and impulsive. Someone who really sets their mind to something might find a way, but most people just utilize whatever they can easily get their hands on or learn quickly. With the 'terrorist handbook', what you ran into was a bunch of kids who would never have had the patience to sit and figure out material from a college level chemistry book being given easy(ier) to follow directions and thus doing things they would have never had the driv

  • before anyone can build an nuke from online instructions

    • Re:It's just a matter of time (Score:5, Funny)

      by slacktide ( 796664 ) on Thursday April 29, 2021 @11:33AM (#61327974)
      The knowledge needed to build a basic fission weapon has been in the public domain for years. The difficulty is acquiring the fissile material without your secret underground centrifuge complex randomly failing for no apparent reason.

      • Don't need centrifuges. There are other ways to separate fissile material. Either the Iranians are dumb or they're doing the smart easier thing faster while everyone is focused on their centrifuges.

      • This. I'm no genius, but I am a machinist. I could make a simple blowback style submachine gun out of readily available material in less than a day. This kind of legislation is about looking good, not doing good.
      • There was a science-fact article in Analog Science Fiction Magazine many years ago titled "Build Your Own A-Bomb and Wake Up the Neighborhood" that laid out the process of building a bomb; the article made the same point -- constructing a device to slam two hemispheres of fissile material together is orders of magnitude less difficult than getting sufficient material for the core of the bomb.

    • before anyone can build an nuke from online instructions

      Easy there, Nuke Laloosh. Just because you can walk into Wal-Mart and buy pipes and chemicals to make a pipe bomb, doesn't mean the baker is in the back making fresh U-235 cakes.

      Governments still can't make nukes. That threat ain't coming to your neighbors garage, anytime soon.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jwhyche ( 6192 )

      That boat already sailed. Any reasonable intelligent person can build a little boy type atomic bomb out of parts from the local hardware store. The hardest thing about it is getting your hands on weapons grade U-235.

      The second hardest thing is getting ahold of the trigger explosives. Which, to be honest, isn't that hard to get ahold of, or manufacture.

  • In the open, world market, AK-47 run about $200. I'd rather have one of those in Somalia than a $2000 machine that will one AR receiver every day. Still have to find the trigger components and barrels.

    • Still have to find the trigger components and barrels.

      Err...that's VERY easy to find and can be bought mail order or online.

      Only one part of any firearm sold is serialized....if you can mill that, you can readily buy all the other parts legally with no checks, etc.

      You know...spare parts?

  • It doesn't make any logical sense to try to ban instructions for creating something. That's essentially a ban on "pre crime".

    America has always upheld the concept that you can explain how to construct an object for educational purposes, even when you wouldn't be legally allowed to own the final product if you did build it.

    But beyond that? The "terrorists" argument is really old and tired. You want to deny law-abiding citizens the ability to try to construct a gun from 3D printed parts as a hobby interest be

  • who are the terrorists? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sdinfoserv ( 1793266 ) on Thursday April 29, 2021 @11:34AM (#61327980)
    Exactly how many terrorist attacks or mass shootings are from "ghost guns"... none, it's a non-issue. Just like all attacks on “guns”. Guns may be a problem, but they’re absolutely not “the” problem. Gun violence, homelessness, the opioid crisis, rampant under employment, a failed healthcare system, mental health crisis, raising suicide rates, a 40% obesity rate, are all symptoms of the same problem. They are diseases of despair. Emile Durkehim studied this to answer the question what drives an individual or society to collectively self-destruct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] When the bonds of society rupture, then supports systems crack or are dismantled, we see diseases of despair. We are in late stage capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • Re:who are the terrorists? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Dynedain ( 141758 ) <slashdot2@anthon ... minus physicist> on Thursday April 29, 2021 @01:10PM (#61328540) Homepage

      Gun violence, homelessness, the opioid crisis, rampant under employment, a failed healthcare system, mental health crisis, raising suicide rates, a 40% obesity rate, are all symptoms of the same problem.

      Sure, but the party that consistently fights gun control is also the party that also consistently fights against any and all social safety net programs meant to address those other concerns and their underlying problems.

  • Everyone should have their own hydrogen bomb. And their own centrifuge for separating uranium. I would never leave home without my personal hydrogen bomb - otherwise, if I meet someone I don't like, I cannot threaten to go nuclear. No more fighting for parking spaces - people always back down! (until they don't - LOL)

  • Chris Rock got it right many years ago. Gun control is pointless, we should be controlling bullets. Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. And you can't 3D print a bullet.

    Chris Rock stand-up Bullet Control [youtube.com]

    • However, bullets are almost trivial to make in a workshop, whereas until the advent of 3D printing making anything more than a simple zip gun required skill and decent tools.

      You can't stop people from making their own bullets, but until 3D printers and the Internet you could make it really difficult for them to make their own guns.

      Trying to stop the plans from being available on the Internet is a joke, though. At best you can make possession or use of the plans an offense and use it as another charge after

      • However, bullets are almost trivial to make in a workshop, whereas until the advent of 3D printing making anything more than a simple zip gun required skill and decent tools.

        Either you're being purposely deceptive, or you're not aware of what it takes to make a bullet.

        There is nothing trivial, about primers. Control the flow of a single key component, and you can control the manufacture of bullets.

        • Primers are not mechanically much more difficult than making a casing, and chemically not much more difficult than making your propellant.

          If you're willing to have a high percentage of misfires, you can make primers out of easily sourced materials.

          It's still something you can do in your home workshop if you're invested in getting it done. The technology is almost 200 years old, you don't need a modern machine shop.

    • The same community driving most of the work in 3D printed arms is also working on home manufacture of ammunition, making quick progress too. Most of the people working in that scene live in Europe where ammunition is already restricted, so they have an incentive
      • People have been making their own ammo for 100's of years. I can get all the tools I need to do it from Amazon right now. This isn't a problem that needs new tech, it's been solved.
        • Yes, in the United States, where gunpowder, black powder, primers, bullets, cases, and reloading equipment are not regulated. This is not the case in the rest of the world, and it wouldn't be the case if morons like the guy quoting Chris Rock had their way

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by chill ( 34294 )

      Chris Rock is a comedian. Here's another comedy take on it:
      Guns don't kill people. Physics kills people! [tenor.com]

      Home reloading and casting your own bullets is cheap and easy. Brass is plentiful, as is powder. Primers, however, frequently seem to be in short supply.

      • There's always a catch. In this case making a primer. It's over 100 year old technology but try making one.

  • The Biden administration should have simply put the guns back on the list, then told the court that the question was moot.

  • until the next court rules that they aren't. Seems like it's been going back and forth for a few years now.

  • States will now try to ban home built firearms. Good luck with that.

    I wonder if 3D printer manufacturers will be mandated to include anti-counterfeiting features or code that adds a signature to firearms parts that identifies the printer.

    • States will now try to ban home built firearms. Good luck with that.

      I wonder if 3D printer manufacturers will be mandated to include anti-counterfeiting features or code that adds a signature to firearms parts that identifies the printer.

      Good luck when it;s a hobby made 3d printer or I just edit the firmware.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It is better for civilization to be going down the drain than to be coming up it." -- Henry Allen

Close