Quote:The Department of Justice and Second Amendment Foundation have reached a settlement in SAF’s lawsuit on behalf of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed over free speech issues related to 3-D files and other information that may be used to manufacture lawful firearms.
SAF and Defense Distributed had filed suit against the State Department under the Obama administration, challenging a May 2013 attempt to control public speech as an export under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), a Cold War-era law intended to control exports of military articles.
Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint.
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.
“Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called ‘weapons of war,’ and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort."
(07-14-2018 12:37 PM)stinkfist Wrote: not sure about this one Kap.....
this is a dangerous place to travel.....
I've been waiting for a ruling on this one.....
and you know I like me goons....[/align]
There probably should be some sort of regulation, but the way the Obama administration went after it was ham-handed and wrong.
But IMO the key part is the admission that non-automatic firearms of .50 caliber and smaller aren't considered military weapons. That's a game changer that can be thrown in the face of every ignorant hoplophobe from now until eternity.
(07-14-2018 12:37 PM)stinkfist Wrote: not sure about this one Kap.....
this is a dangerous place to travel.....
I've been waiting for a ruling on this one.....
and you know I like me goons....[/align]
There probably should be some sort of regulation, but the way the Obama administration went after it was ham-handed and wrong.
But IMO the key part is the admission that non-automatic firearms of .50 caliber and smaller aren't considered military weapons. That's a game changer that can be thrown in the face of every ignorant hoplophobe from now until eternity.
that's my take.....you can't just let everyone or anyone make weapons.....
the problem is you can't stop the technology.....once the blueprint is on e-file, there's no getting it back....
it renders all existing laws useless......
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2018 01:02 PM by stinkfist.)
Stink what is the 3-D blueprint stuff? You still need a manufacturing capability? Anyone can buy an AR take it apart and mfg those parts and copy them? I have seen Fillipinos on youtube making custom rifles in 800 sq. ft. workshops.
Quote:The Department of Justice and Second Amendment Foundation have reached a settlement in SAF’s lawsuit on behalf of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed over free speech issues related to 3-D files and other information that may be used to manufacture lawful firearms.
SAF and Defense Distributed had filed suit against the State Department under the Obama administration, challenging a May 2013 attempt to control public speech as an export under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), a Cold War-era law intended to control exports of military articles.
Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint.
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.
“Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called ‘weapons of war,’ and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort."
It's a fair ruling. The only thing here that I don't get is the .50 caliber inclusion. We are talking about a round that can travel essentially 4.2 miles. Which is a bit much for most regions of the country. It is essentially the caliber used for hunting elephant and rhino's (464 Weatherby Magnum which I have fired but not at an animal). I find no practical use for this caliber in the Continental United States except to crack the engine blocks of vehicles which is clearly a military type objective.
The AR's are great for some varmints like coyotes. The sporter AK's are quite possibly the best choice for wild hogs. So I am grateful for the ruling, but just puzzled as to why the inclusion of the .50 is there. Although, upon reflection, it might make a good defense weapon for private yacht owners and shrimping and fishing boats which are sometimes victimized by crime at sea.
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2018 02:08 PM by JRsec.)
(07-14-2018 01:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Stink what is the 3-D blueprint stuff? You still need a manufacturing capability? Anyone can buy an AR take it apart and mfg those parts and copy them? I have seen Fillipinos on youtube making custom rifles in 800 sq. ft. workshops.
And if they have then some criminals or terrorists could certainly do the same. There are trademark issues for legal replication.
(07-14-2018 01:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Stink what is the 3-D blueprint stuff? You still need a manufacturing capability? Anyone can buy an AR take it apart and mfg those parts and copy them? I have seen Fillipinos on youtube making custom rifles in 800 sq. ft. workshops.
And if they have then some criminals or terrorists could certainly do the same. There are trademark issues for legal replication.
you got it.....
and JR.....it won't matter what .cal moving forward......
this is where tech becomes very dangerous......
I'm not certain how to explain it in simpler fashion......
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2018 02:14 PM by stinkfist.)
(07-14-2018 01:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Stink what is the 3-D blueprint stuff? You still need a manufacturing capability? Anyone can buy an AR take it apart and mfg those parts and copy them? I have seen Fillipinos on youtube making custom rifles in 800 sq. ft. workshops.
what has tech shown us over time.......the price curve steadily drops as efficiency and demand level out....it becomes ubiquitous.....and the bad guys don't give two shites on the front end....
just think about it.....
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2018 02:19 PM by stinkfist.)
Quote:The Department of Justice and Second Amendment Foundation have reached a settlement in SAF’s lawsuit on behalf of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed over free speech issues related to 3-D files and other information that may be used to manufacture lawful firearms.
SAF and Defense Distributed had filed suit against the State Department under the Obama administration, challenging a May 2013 attempt to control public speech as an export under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), a Cold War-era law intended to control exports of military articles.
Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint.
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.
“Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called ‘weapons of war,’ and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort."
It's a fair ruling. The only thing here that I don't get is the .50 caliber inclusion. We are talking about a round that can travel essentially 4.2 miles. Which is a bit much for most regions of the country. It is essentially the caliber used for hunting elephant and rhino's (464 Weatherby Magnum which I have fired but not at an animal). I find no practical use for this caliber in the Continental United States except to crack the engine blocks of vehicles which is clearly a military type objective.
The AR's are great for some varmints like coyotes. The sporter AK's are quite possibly the best choice for wild hogs. So I am grateful for the ruling, but just puzzled as to why the inclusion of the .50 is there. Although, upon reflection, it might make a good defense weapon for private yacht owners and shrimping and fishing boats which are sometimes victimized by crime at sea.
There's more .50 caliber offerings than the .50BMG
There's the .50 Action Express or .50AE which is available in the Desert Eagle handgun.
There's the .50 beowulf which is typically fired out of an AR platform rifle
There's the .500 Smith and Wesson Magnum which is fired out of a revolver.
There's countless "wildcat" cartridges out there that use a .50 caliber bullet.
And the overwhelming majority of modern black powder rifles fire a .50 caliber projectile.
(07-14-2018 01:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Stink what is the 3-D blueprint stuff? You still need a manufacturing capability? Anyone can buy an AR take it apart and mfg those parts and copy them? I have seen Fillipinos on youtube making custom rifles in 800 sq. ft. workshops.
And if they have then some criminals or terrorists could certainly do the same. There are trademark issues for legal replication.
you got it.....
and JR.....it won't matter what .cal moving forward......
this is where tech becomes very dangerous......
I'm not certain how to explain it in simpler fashion......
I was just thinking about practical use and safety. You need wide open spaces, or extremely large game for that round to make any sense. I do see the use for defense at sea where you have a 7 mile horizon on a clear day. So the caliber and size of the round matters when it comes to the avoidance of unintended consequences.
As far as technology goes, pulse weapons are being, if they have not been already, miniaturized. That will be a brand new day when the public gets a dose. Save your pre-1982 pennies. It is why Copper sells so well to the Chinese.
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2018 02:22 PM by JRsec.)
(07-14-2018 01:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Stink what is the 3-D blueprint stuff? You still need a manufacturing capability? Anyone can buy an AR take it apart and mfg those parts and copy them? I have seen Fillipinos on youtube making custom rifles in 800 sq. ft. workshops.
And if they have then some criminals or terrorists could certainly do the same. There are trademark issues for legal replication.
you got it.....
and JR.....it won't matter what .cal moving forward......
this is where tech becomes very dangerous......
I'm not certain how to explain it in simpler fashion......
I was just thinking about practical use and safety. You need wide open spaces, or extremely large game for that round to make any sense. I do see the use for defense at sea where you have a 7 mile horizon on a clear day. So the caliber and size of the round matters when it comes to the avoidance of unintended consequences.
it still doesn't matter.....
if some crazy guy wants to develop large scale weaponry, it will be possible....
people biatch about the school/church/wtfe shootings today......you won't be able to stop a mass eradication......
and it's gonna happen w/o a plane in the not too distant future.......
(07-14-2018 01:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Stink what is the 3-D blueprint stuff? You still need a manufacturing capability? Anyone can buy an AR take it apart and mfg those parts and copy them? I have seen Fillipinos on youtube making custom rifles in 800 sq. ft. workshops.
what has tech shown us over time.......the price curve steadily drops as efficiency and demand level out....it becomes ubiquitous.....and the bad guys don't give two shites on the front end....
just think about it.....
What kind of cost is associated with making a 3-D printed gun from metal and not plastic? What do you need in your garage or basement?
(07-14-2018 01:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Stink what is the 3-D blueprint stuff? You still need a manufacturing capability? Anyone can buy an AR take it apart and mfg those parts and copy them? I have seen Fillipinos on youtube making custom rifles in 800 sq. ft. workshops.
And if they have then some criminals or terrorists could certainly do the same. There are trademark issues for legal replication.
Only with name usage or trade dress. Most physical features on rifles are functional. Huge rule in trademark (and design patents) is that one cannot use trademark (or design patents) to protect functional aspects.
Trademark, trade dress, and design patent protection is limited solely to aesthetic features.
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2018 02:37 PM by tanqtonic.)
Quote:The Department of Justice and Second Amendment Foundation have reached a settlement in SAF’s lawsuit on behalf of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed over free speech issues related to 3-D files and other information that may be used to manufacture lawful firearms.
SAF and Defense Distributed had filed suit against the State Department under the Obama administration, challenging a May 2013 attempt to control public speech as an export under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), a Cold War-era law intended to control exports of military articles.
Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint.
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.
“Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called ‘weapons of war,’ and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort."
It's a fair ruling. The only thing here that I don't get is the .50 caliber inclusion. We are talking about a round that can travel essentially 4.2 miles. Which is a bit much for most regions of the country. It is essentially the caliber used for hunting elephant and rhino's (464 Weatherby Magnum which I have fired but not at an animal). I find no practical use for this caliber in the Continental United States except to crack the engine blocks of vehicles which is clearly a military type objective.
The AR's are great for some varmints like coyotes. The sporter AK's are quite possibly the best choice for wild hogs. So I am grateful for the ruling, but just puzzled as to why the inclusion of the .50 is there. Although, upon reflection, it might make a good defense weapon for private yacht owners and shrimping and fishing boats which are sometimes victimized by crime at sea.
There's more .50 caliber offerings than the .50BMG
There's the .50 Action Express or .50AE which is available in the Desert Eagle handgun.
There's the .50 beowulf which is typically fired out of an AR platform rifle
There's the .500 Smith and Wesson Magnum which is fired out of a revolver.
There's countless "wildcat" cartridges out there that use a .50 caliber bullet.
And the overwhelming majority of modern black powder rifles fire a .50 caliber projectile.
Kap, I realize this. Part of my 20 years of corporate life were in sporting goods of which the arms industry was a major component. And primitive weapons apply to none of this, IMO, as the smooth bore, and even rifled renditions simply don't have the range to be a major hazard. But we were talking primarily about rifles in the OP.
I find Kronke's remarks appropriate with regard to springs and boxes, but for another reason. Spring tension and the sear is frequently the only difference between semi and full. So it's not just restricted to magazine construction.
The only thing the law prevents is what the law abiding will do.
Nothing has changed since Browning invented his BAR and the Thompson was sold mail order for under $50. Criminals will arm themselves with whatever they can get that works most efficiently for them. So since the Obama administration saw fit to sell fully automatic military weapons to the Mexican drug cartel I have to wonder when things will come full circle for the American public. AK's have been reverse engineered in machine shops world wide. In the 70's caches of fully automatic weapons were found in the desert in the Southwestern U.S. and were attributed to future terrorist plots even way back then. We don't live in a vacuum and Joe Q public is clueless as to the threat it may one day face. And all of this is tied to border security. Without it (border security), there should be no restrictions on weapons in the U.S. because the right of self defense is impinged when criminals and foreign combatants are under no restrictions.
But even then, we aren't talking about the range of sporting rifles.
(07-14-2018 01:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Stink what is the 3-D blueprint stuff? You still need a manufacturing capability? Anyone can buy an AR take it apart and mfg those parts and copy them? I have seen Fillipinos on youtube making custom rifles in 800 sq. ft. workshops.
what has tech shown us over time.......the price curve steadily drops as efficiency and demand level out....it becomes ubiquitous.....and the bad guys don't give two shites on the front end....
just think about it.....
What kind of cost is associated with making a 3-D printed gun from metal and not plastic? What do you need in your garage or basement?
$$$$
most people have no fk'n clue what #algorism will eventually become....they'll continue to pray and think that's all hunky......good luck with that....
too many do not understand the sadist......
@forewarning
it's gonna happen whether you like it or not....
one is an idiot if they're not paying att'n NOW!
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2018 02:48 PM by stinkfist.)
(07-14-2018 01:33 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote: Stink what is the 3-D blueprint stuff? You still need a manufacturing capability? Anyone can buy an AR take it apart and mfg those parts and copy them? I have seen Fillipinos on youtube making custom rifles in 800 sq. ft. workshops.
what has tech shown us over time.......the price curve steadily drops as efficiency and demand level out....it becomes ubiquitous.....and the bad guys don't give two shites on the front end....
just think about it.....
What kind of cost is associated with making a 3-D printed gun from metal and not plastic? What do you need in your garage or basement?
Best thing is a programmable metal milling machine. The defendant in the above case provides one, along with the software instructions to build the lower receiver. Other plans for other portions of the gun (non-regulated) are far more easily obtainable.
*But*, even though the milling machine + instructions is legal at this point, in no way whatsoever allow *anyone* else to use that machine to build a lower *or* complete an 80% lower with it.
Legal to do it for yourself, illegal to sell that lower to anyone.
Legal to do it for yourself, but the millisecond that you allow *anyone* else to mill a lower, or even *complete* an 80% lower, *you* could very well become a gun manufacturer under the law and need an FFL license. It is pretty much black letter that a mill that is regularly used for business purposes, once used for any build purpose then makes that owner of the business unit a 'gun manufacturer'.
It is somewhat less clear if a "private" milling machine faces the same issue. But, no reason to risk it.
This is the reason *no one* ever has a 'build party' anymore.
The guy behind the Ghost Gunner (the defendant) says it will take about a month to get their stock flowing again. The last time they shipped one it was 2500 bucks. I dont think it will be much more once they get back running. An 80% lower blank typically costs 70 bucks or so. Expect another 100 bucks on metal for the other 'flat' pieces to machine, and 75-100 dollars for a barrel.
Break even point on the Ghost Gunner is right at 2 AR style rifles.
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2018 03:03 PM by tanqtonic.)
/
Big win for the 1st and 2nd Amendments
