Read This Before You Debate Your Friend
The quality of journalism among mainstream news leaves something to be desired. Especially if the topic requires background research to fully understand. If, for example, you Google “3-D printed guns,” the search yields hundreds of articles. I recently read through the top hits. I found only a few articles that accurately described the issues. The others missed the mark. The authors seemed to think the controversy surrounding 3-D guns is whether making a 3-D printed gun is legal. That's just... wrong.
So, let’s talk about 3-D printed guns:
The company at the center of the controversy is called Defense Distributed. A few years back Defense Distributed uploaded CAD files to the internet for free download. The files allowed people with the right 3-D printing hardware to print almost all the parts necessary to build a handgun mostly out of plastic.
The State Department (responsible for administering federal laws related to the export of defense articles) sent Defense Distributed a letter, demanding the company pull the files off the internet. The State Department’s basis for the demand was (a) the files constituted “defense articles” on the United States Munitions List and (b) the worldwide availability of the files on the internet constituted an export (i.e., foreign nationals had access to the files). Thus, the State Department concluded Defense Distributed was in violation of the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”) and AECA’s implementing regulations.
Defense Distributed complied with the letter and took down the files. Then Defense Distributed went on the offensive: Defense Distributed filed suit against the State Department on First Amendment grounds. Defense Distributed argued that publishing the files online constituted a form of speech, and that the State Department’s attempt to impose a prior restraint on that speech was unconstitutional. Defense Distributed also asked the judge to declare Defense Distributed could re-publish the files online while the case was pending. The judge denied the injunction request, leaving the parties to litigate on the merits.
Fast forward a bit. President Trump takes office. The case is still pending. The State Department suddenly moves to settle the case with Defense Distributed.
The State Department explained its decision by citing the impending transfer of administrative responsibilities related to commercially available defense articles from the State Department to the Department of Commerce. Apparently, with the impending transfer of responsibilities to Commerce, the Defense Distributed CAD files will no longer be subject to prior restraint.
Of course, the media took notice of the sudden settlement of the Defense Distributed suit. Articles followed, which caught the attention of the anti-gun crowd. Things got twisted around. Now many people think the issue in the Defense Distributed case was whether untraceable, 3-D guns are legal in the United States.
Well, guess what? As far as the federal government is concerned, 3-D printed guns were legal, they are legal, and they will remain legal regardless of the outcome of litigation stemming from the initial Defense Distributed case.
This is because the issue in the Defense Distributed case is the concept of an export of a defense article. As long as you are a US citizen legally able to possess a normal firearm (and your state/local law doesn’t provide otherwise), it is 100% legal for Defense Distributed to provide you with CAD files for 3-D printing firearm parts. Similarly, it is completely legal (federally) for you to make an unserialized gun out of 3-D printed parts, as long as you intend to use the gun for personal use at the time you build it.
My point? The current anti-3-D gun outrage is misguided. The Defense Distributed case is not about whether 3-D printed guns are legal. The case stems from a federal restriction related to the export of defense articles. 3-D printed guns are and will remain legal (federally) for US citizens to print, build, and possess regardless of the recent litigation.
