Biden Announces New 3D Gun Regulation (cnn.com) 346
SonicSpike writes: President Biden has just announced that he will be enacting regulation requiring that homebuilt firearms, including 3D printed guns, have a serial number and be registered with the government.
Uh huh (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don’t people just comply? Isn’t that what I hear anytime the police shoot someone?
Re: (Score:2)
This is just the government trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
most "ghost guns" that have no serial number, are just normal guns that had the serial number scratched off.
The number of crimes that are coming from actual guns manufactured like this is so small that this isn't likely to have any effect on their "ghost gun" epidemic. The only real accomplishment here is inconveniencing hobbyists and possibly preventing anyone except a licensed gunsmith from building one (mostly through the red tape o
Re: Uh huh (Score:2)
An 80% lower can be finished with a basic lathe and drill press. For that matter, you can carve an AR lower out of a piece of oak or other hardwood. So a knife and chisel set.
Re: (Score:3)
It is difficult to comply when an unelected alphabet agency is constantly changing the rules without oversight.
One day they send a letter saying what you are doing is perfect legal, a month later they decide it isn't and might raid your home or business over it. There is zero consistency with them and they have an unlimited amount of money to fuck you over in court.
Re: (Score:2)
This is infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so it can be ignored.
The Courts have already ruled that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute. Also, requiring serial numbers on parts and requiring background checks on gun-kit purchases, as done for regular (whole gun) purchases, doesn't illegally infringe on that right.
It won't cause criminals to start registering weapons...
No, but if every part is stamped with a serial number, then parts can be traced back to an initial sale, and possibly traced from there. Adding a serial number to existing guns w/o them also helps trace them from that point on.
Re: (Score:2)
Which infringes on the right to keep and bear arms. The state keeping a list of what arms exist and who has them undermines our ability to fight off tyrannical people who weasel their way in to corrupt the government. The supreme court is not the only line of defense protecting our rights, denying the ABILITY to infringe on rights is essentially to maintaining them as well.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but if every part is stamped with a serial number, then parts can be traced back to an initial sale
How? A federal gun registry is illegal.
Sure a "federal" registry, but local (state?) police keep track of weapon serial numbers. It's not an all or nothing thing...
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, CONGRESS makes laws.
Not the President.
Re: (Score:2)
Adding a serial number to a part you manufacture is infringing which right exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Adding a serial number to a part you manufacture is infringing which right exactly?
Agreed, but TFA notes that those selling gun kits must put serial numbers on the parts, so not sure if you'd be required to do that on parts you make for yourself, unless you sell them. It also notes that firearms dealers must add a serial number to any "ghost" guns they already have.
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Insightful)
This is so stupid. This is infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so it can be ignored.
No. Registering guns does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Different things.
The constitution says nothing about registering arms one way or another, but in fact during the time the constitution was written, many towns in fact did register the arms of the people living in the town. (Because back then "militia" meant the able-bodied men of the town, and they had in interest in knowing what able-bodied men had what arms.)
Repeat that again: the right to keep and bear arms does not preclude registering arms.
I'm surprised that people who shout at all turns "we gotta strictly interpret the constitution! Don't invent rights that weren't specifically there!" will turn around and add new rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Then certainly Congress can require one to register before practicing religion, or require registration before speech is allowed. That would eliminate anonymous coward comments.
Re: (Score:3)
No. Registering guns does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
Don't play semantic games. We have seen this play out in many other countries: First the registration, then the confiscation. Examine Kuwait for a more recent example, but Nazi Germany works too.
Slippery slope [Re: Re:Uh huh] (Score:4, Insightful)
No. Registering guns does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Different things.
In and of itself, no it does not. What it does is it enables the infringement of that right. A gun registry is a prerequisite to enforce a gun ban.
Ah, the old "slippery slope" [yourlogicalfallacyis.com] argument.
https://owl.excelsior.edu/argu... [excelsior.edu]
https://www.txstate.edu/philos... [txstate.edu]
I don't buy it.
Guns are simply not going to be confiscated in the US. Not now, not if the Democrats win, not even if the fucking communist party wins. Not going to happen.
That would require a constitutional amendment, and that's not going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
This is so stupid. This is infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so it can be ignored.
This is stupid, but not because it infringes on your right to bear arms. Requiring individuals who *manufacture* guns to include a serial number and to register ownership just like you would a handgun from any other manufacturer is completely orthogonal to that right.
No, the reason it is stupid is because a 3D-printed firearm is, by definition, made of plastic, which means you could remove the serial number in about five seconds with a cigarette lighter....
Not by definition [Re:Uh huh] (Score:2)
No, the reason it is stupid is because a 3D-printed firearm is, by definition, made of plastic, which means you could remove the serial number in about five seconds with a cigarette lighter....
Wrong for two reasons. First, no, 3D printing is not "by definition" made of plastic. The low end hobbyist 3D printing is plastic, but no, you can 3D print metal.
(People have tried designing guns to be 3D printed from all-plastic, but none of these designs has worked very well.)
Second, though, this isn't about people 3D printing guns. This is about companies selling "80% complete" gun kits, where the metal parts are in the kit. Typically the whole lower receiver is complete, and the person putting the gun
Re: (Score:2)
What's the problem exactly? If you print one, just register it.
Just don't expect my sympathy if you shoot someone in self-defense without having registered the gun beforehand. And don't expect my sympathy if you (or one of your loved ones) shoots the gun and it blows up in their face just because the 3D design was defective.
Re:Uh huh (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody is saying you can't have the gun. You just need to register it, just like any other gun from a licensed manufacturer that complies with regulations.
Want to manufacture a gun? Comply with regulations.
And, honestly, how many gang banger corner kids have the equipment and expertise to 3D print a gun? And why would they when you can get handguns on the street easier, faster, and more reliably?
3D printed guns are specifically for people that are trying to get around lawful regulation. Nobody else gives a shit.
Re: Uh huh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"well regulated" means in a working state like a "well regulated" clock that keeps accurate time. You are using "well regulated" to mean "controlled by government," which is exactly the opposite of what the 2nd amendment is for or means.
I think Putin made the same mistake thinking about his militia/army before invading Ukraine.
Re: Uh huh (Score:5, Informative)
1a: to govern or direct according to rule
1b (1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
1b (2): to make regulations for or concerning
Since they're not taking away the right to bear arms, it's is well within the jurisprudence of the government to require a serial number and registration of said arms when they're manufactured at home. If memory serves all factory produced firearms must have a unique serial number, which is a crime to remove, and when purchased the number is registered to the buyer.
Re: (Score:3)
And where, exactly, is this enumerated power of government described in the Constitution?
Re: Uh huh (Score:5, Informative)
Relying on the "general Welfare of the United States" clause as you do effectively means that Congress has the power to do almost anything as long as they are not explicitly prohibited from doing so elsewhere in the Constitution (as amended) as long as they believe it's advantageous to the general welfare of the US.
Your interpretation of the clause also makes much of the rest of Article I, Section 8 (including the powers you didn't embolden in your own quote) surplusage as surely the founders thought that granting Congress the power (but not obligation) to establish "Post offices and post roads" and to regulate commerce "among the several States" was in the "general Welfare of the United States" so those powers already fell under the "general welfare" clause. That alone makes your interpretation suspect. What powers do you think Congress would NOT have under your interpretation of the general welfare clause?
However, the Tenth Amendment (which of course overrides anything in the body of the Constitution as it was ratified after the Constitution was) demolishes your interpretation:
as almost all power would already be in the hands of Congress. Why include the Tenth Amendment (originally the Twelfth Article submitted to the states for ratification) in that case?
Here [congress.gov] is a good writeup on Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 that you may want to read which includes this quote from Thomas Jefferson (who I am confident knew far more about the intent and shared understanding of the Constitution at the time of ratification than you or I do):
Your interpretation is also specifically lambasted by Madison (who I also am confident had a better understanding of the intent and shared understanding of the Constitution at the time of ratification than you or I do) in Federalist 41 [yale.edu]:
Hamilton is sometimes quoted as having a distinctly broader view of the "general welfare" clause however those quotes, as far as I can tell, come from after ratification of the Constitution when Hamilton was seeking more power for the Federal government which he was now an official in (as politicians are wont to when they are in power).
Re: (Score:2)
This whole line of reasoning is pointless. The introductory, dependent, parenthetical clause has no bearing on the directive in the amendment itself. Before all else, just parse it in standard English.
I have a question with exactly one answer that exposes the idiocy of the "muh well regulated militia" dolts.
You walk in to a store with a sign on it, "Due to thefts by teens, backpacks of any sort may not be worn in this store.". Now, you're 40, you ain't no teenager! Can you wear a backpack in the store?
The a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, let's take that line of reasoning. The shop rules apply to everyone, equally, from the teen in the street to a US army general. We're all agreed on that, right?
So apply it to gun regulations. The law, if indeed it is the law of the land, applies to the government, the police, and everyone else, and not just spotty teens. One law for rich and poor alike. We can make reasonable allowance for the military acting in a military capacity for defence of the nation from outside threats or for outside operation
Re: Uh huh (Score:4, Informative)
Read up on DC v. Heller. The meaning is now part of the SCOTUS jurisprudence, and it indeed means dependable and orderly.
But leave it to activists to willfully misrepresent the meaning of a word, i.e., the #2 definition at your link:
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to
// regulate one's habits
Regis [Re: Uh huh] (Score:4, Insightful)
...therefore it's the "common usage" of the word....
You need the common usage of the word in the late 1700's, not the modern usage. Back then, "well regulated" meant more like "well armed", "well organized", "well disciplined".
Except that's not true, not even close to true. The word "regulation" was well established in its current usage back in 1791.
It did not then, and does not now, mean "well armed". And it means "well organized" only if by that you mean "following rules" (which is to say, laws.)
It precisely did NOT mean "controlled by government authority"
It most certainly did. "Regulation" stems from the Latin "Regis": king.
Check a historical dictionary.
Re:Regis [Re: Uh huh] (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
So common usage is only what the word meant then â" for most of your rebuttal â" but then you turn around and state, "'Militia' is all the able-bodied adult males (or, nowadays, responsible adult people of either sex or whatever fine-grained gender you care to name)," thereby changing the common usage of that word,
Original Intent is not the only issue that affects the reading of the constitutional provisions.
For instance, had the Equal Rights Amendment been ratified, placing women on equal legal s
Re: Uh huh (Score:4, Informative)
"well regulated" means in a working state like a "well regulated" clock that keeps accurate time. You are using "well regulated" to mean "controlled by government," which is exactly the opposite of what the 2nd amendment is for or means.
You don't get to just make up meanings when you don't like the one given. This is called re-writing history and washing it the colors you prefer. In the absence of a definition in a legal document, the precedent has always been to refer to the common/dictionary meaning of the word.
1a: to govern or direct according to rule
1b (1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
1b (2): to make regulations for or concerning
So there you go.
National Guard only part of militia (Score:3)
Can I assume you're in the National Guard?
The national guard is only part of the militia, the organized part. The unorganized part is all other military aged males.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.... [house.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Poor Australia and their insanely low number of shooting deaths. A toddler shoots someone every other week in this country. Figures don’t lie.
https://www.timescall.com/2021... [timescall.com]
Re: (Score:3)
And yet Ukraine has stood up to one of the largest armies in the world rolling tanks into their country from three directions. But I'm sure that's because somehow Ukraine recruited, trained, and mobilized a massive army in less than 24 hours, right?
You are watching your argument fall apart on live TV in front of you every night. As it turns out, unless you are willing to totally destroy a city, urban combat doesn't give a shit about fancy tanks and super expensive aircraft.
Australia is not the US [Re: Uh huh] (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, note that the Australian NFA banned "automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns" (and included funding to buy these back from owners at fair market value). This reduced the number of guns in Australia by 20%: not exactly "confiscating guns" by a "tyrannical lockdown".
Oh, and guns weren't required to be registered nationally until after the NFA. It wasn't a case of them registering guns and then using the registration to confiscate guns.
...Say what you will about gun deaths, but people with a criminal intent on murder donâ(TM)t care about gun laws
But the murder and suicide rate dropped in Australia after the buyback program and the NFA ban on "automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns;" and the mass shootings disappeared. So apparently the criminals (and suicides) did pay attention.
Re:Uh huh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A car (3D printed or otherwise) does not require a VIN and license plate until you want to use it on a public road which requires that it be licensed. In many states, there is no requirement to obtain a license to possess a gun, so no serial number would be needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh no (Score:2)
Order 66 is here! Everyone head to the nearest Walmart and buy them out of ammo!
Re:Oh no (Score:4, Interesting)
I literally know people who went out and bought a gun when they never owned one when Obama got elected because they were expecting him to come and take them away.
None of them give a rat's ass (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone head to the nearest Walmart and buy them out of ammo!
If they had any...
Re: Oh no (Score:2)
SCOTUS slapdown in 3... 2... 1... (Score:2)
Re: SCOTUS slapdown in 3... 2... 1... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Zero chance this kind of rule can withstand scrutiny under the 2nd Amendment with a conservative majority on the court.
Ans why would requiring gun-part manufacturers to put serial numbers on parts be unconstitutional? Or requiring gun-kit buyers to undergo the same background checks as regular gun buyers? Do those rules infringe on eligible (the 2ndA isn't absolute) peoples' right to own guns? No.
Re: (Score:3)
What constitutes a gun part? A block of steel that can be machined into a lower receiver with a CNC machine? What about a steel tube that can be rifled?
This is just political red meat being tossed to his base and will not have any impact whatsoever on gun crime in America.
Re: (Score:2)
What constitutes a gun part? A block of steel that can be machined into a lower receiver with a CNC machine? What about a steel tube that can be rifled?
TFA specifically mentioned parts in purchased "gun kits" had to be stamped w/serial numbers. I imagine that would also apply to individual pre-made gun parts purchased. The (raw) materials that could be fashioned into gun parts, post sale, aren't mentioned. Those would be home-made, not purchased, parts, so your "hypothetical" doesn't apply.
New rules (Score:4, Informative)
From TFA:
The new rules require anyone purchasing a kit to undergo a background check, as is required for other types of firearm purchases. It also requires those selling the kits to mark components with a serial number, so the eventual weapon produced can be traced. And it mandates firearm dealers add a serial number to already built ghost guns they come across in their businesses.
and if you print your own gun? (Score:2)
and if you print your own gun?
Re: (Score:2)
Then you don’t have to. Christ how dumb are you people?
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, do you really need to ask?
Re:New rules (Score:4, Insightful)
What constitutes a kit ?
Is a piece of metal bing enough to be milled into a gun part a kit ?
Is a spool of strong 3d printer plastic filament a kit ?
Is a shovel [warisboring.com] a kit ?
My first thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
On reading TFA was that "of course this will work. After all, everyone knows that criminals ALWAYS obey the law, and would never even consider not doing so.
Then I got to the part about 692 "ghost guns" used to kill people in a five year span, I realized that this was just more security theatre.
No, this won't do anything meaningful to affect the murder rate. Even if it applied retroactively, which would be illegal, we're only talking 140 guns a year used to commit murder. Out of the hundred million or so firearms in the country....
On the plus side, it should help sell a lot of "ghost guns" that are already in the wild....
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, it's one more count against you if you use the weapon to commit a crime and you get caught.
I don't think that anyone is under any illusion that this will put any kind of damper on printing guns.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the dumbest pretend argument. You can say this about any law. Do you think that all laws are pointless?
Re: (Score:3)
Even if it applied retroactively, which would be illegal, we're only talking 140 guns a year used to commit murder. Out of the hundred million or so firearms in the country....
You're not comparing like against like here. Most of those hundred million firearms were not used to commit murder. The vast majority of them were not. So you should compare those 140 guns with the ~20,000 guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Yup. It doesn't actually solve anything. Criminals won't say "Well I was going to use this, but now it's illegal, so I'll not commit the crime." Criminals would have committed the crime, serial number or not.
The categories are well established in the country.
The biggest category of gun deaths is suicide. Of the roughly 45,000 suicides in the US each year about 20,000 use guns. Guns don't cause the suicides, our suicide rate is right near other nations like Japan with almost no guns, Finland and Poland. B
misleading summary (Score:2)
This applies to selling homemade firearms. Not to the hobbyist at home building his own stuff for personal enjoyment.
Re: (Score:2)
It is perfectly legal if you follow proper procedure.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
Add a serial number and fill out the requisite paperwork. And stay under the volume that would require a federal manufacturer's license.
Oh boy (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh boy, here comes all the "criminals don't follow laws so this wont do anything" comments.
What this will do is stop the flow of untraceable guns coming from honest merchants meaning that criminals will be stuck making their own guns if they want to go this rout and lets face it, most criminals dont have an abundance of intelligence or craft skills, that's part of why they decided to become criminals. Now if you want to sell untraceable guns you have to do it illegally and that will turn quite a few off of the practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Now if you want to sell untraceable guns you have to do it illegally and that will turn quite a few off of the practice.
Because making drugs illegal worked so well to discourage people from buying, selling and using drugs.
What this will do is to encourage the cartels to go into the gun manufacturing and distribution business. And while they're at it, might as well make open bolt machine guns (simpler mechanisms).
Re: (Score:2)
It might turn them off the practice if it wasn't even easier to take a serial number off a plastic part than a metal one. If the buyer wants it to be untraceable, a hot knife will deal with the problem. So the seller will comply, and then say "not my fault, I can't stop them from modifying the part."
popcorn time! (Score:2)
Ah'm a stinker!
Re: (Score:2)
That's a new one for me.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a new one for me.
Appens all the time. They'd like to shoot 'em as well.
Got on kook really pissed at me when I asked him his thoughts on a weaponized drone. I think I made his brain divide by zero or something.
Re: (Score:2)
And abortions, and drugs, and immigration, and CRT, and social media the list goes on.
This should go well... (Score:2)
Once someone figures out how to 3D print whatever component makes a "gun" a "gun", prints a few billion of them, serializes them, and then floods the government with these registrations. Ripe for abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
And pays the fees that go with those registrations?
Malicious compliance has been seen many times, and the usual answer is to make it expensive enough that most people wouldn't want to do it just to make a point. Those who do are still paying.
Responsible gun Ownership (Score:2)
What about 2D guns? (Score:3)
DIY (Score:5, Informative)
DIY guns are legal and always have been, as long as they follow general rules about fully automatic fire, barrel lengths, etc... as long as you aren't going to sell them.
https://www.criminaldefenselaw... [criminalde...lawyer.com].
Re:DIY (Score:5, Insightful)
yeah, I doubt this law will do anything to curb any illegal activity, it'll just inconvenience hobbyists.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn’t apply to hobbyists. Only if you start selling the parts. At least RTFA.
It'll happen a massive and immediate impact (Score:2)
It also means if a unregistered fire arm is used in a commission of a crime and it's traced back to one of those hobbyists they're in a whole lot of trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd contest often... at least relative to everyone else. If anything I'd venture the hobbyists falling in this category very rarely break the law. Lots of veterans, law enforcement and the like. In general crime among competent gun owners is extraordinarily rare.
The vast majority of these guns are ARs, hunting rifles for small game, unless someone wants to play sniper with a rifle useless at real sniper dist
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Exactly. The people who're looking to score an illegal gun aren't buying Polymer90's.
And if they want one without a serial, it's simply easier for them to get an illegal gun and file off the serial.
The way to cut down on crime is to put the criminals in jail and KEEP THEM THERE for their full sentence.
All thugs see today is that they can claim "racism", or some form of injustice motivated their crime and they get let off.
+
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah this is for people selling the pieces. The amount of people who own a machine shop and then committed a crime with the gun they manufactured is probably close to zero.
Re: (Score:2)
The lower starts as a billet of aluminum and with each machining step becomes x% more complete. Legally an 80% completed lower is still just a hunk of aluminum. Buy a jig and use a drill press or a router and you can finish the job in a couple ho
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The media considers guns with serial numbers ground off to be "Ghost Guns" (which likely includes most stolen guns). So now a criminal with a metal file is considered a gunsmith.
Re: DIY (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"9mm 1911" is a afront to John M. Browning's (PBUH) legacy. 1911's shall be chambered in .45ACP as JMB intended or not at all.
(Noted exception, 1911's chambered in .22LR for skills training only).
Re: (Score:2)
At the point of manufacture. As long as you didn't make the gun to sell there is no law against selling it.
Re: "Oh no!" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Haha at least you’re man enough to say it instead of let’s go Brandon.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if all the people saying "Let's go Brandon" realized how utterly stupid they looked to the rest of the country.
I mean making up a code word so you don't say a naughty swear? That's what children do.
Re: (Score:2)
They think they're "owning the libs". It's pretty sad.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To normal people, the one who looked stupid saying "let's go Brandon" was the reporter who was trying to gaslight the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Completely unconstitutional except when the state says it isn't. Apparently you missed the part about well regulated militia.
Enforceable? Probably not. More than likely this will be used as most laws are, to slap on additional charges when someone is worried about evidence not being damning enough. The downside is that as with most gun control, it will likely be used against people of color most.
Re: (Score:2)
Since DC v. Heller, the precedent is now clear that a well regulated militia depends on the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. You might want to study the jurisprudence on it if you are that mistaken.
Later this year, another case will be decided (New York State Rifle & Pistol v. Bruen) that is likely to further expand and affirm that right of the individual.
Re: (Score:2)
Filburn would like a word with you. By making your own gun you aren't buying a gun, and as such it is a federal commerce clause matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FUCK JOE BIDEN
Ah the party of family values and Jesus. Right. Cons only say that to get that church money.
Re: (Score:3)
it is the criminal not the gun
Of course it is. Just like it's the driver, not the car, but we have to have a license and a title, and a registration, and yearly inspections.
Well except that one time a friend allowed me to borrow his semi auto to do some varmint hunting. Something was off on the safety, and as I turned toward him, holding it in the crook of my elbow, no where near the trigger it fired. That was a pucker string moment. It really would have been the gun in that case.
Re: (Score:2)
And drivers don't kill people, people kill people! Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Since it's not an actual real-world problem no solution is needed. Biden's doing this in yet another attempt to get what's left of his dwindling base to say "wow, he really did something". Nobody with an IQ over 80 thinks this will actually solve any problem.