BATF position on 3D printing of guns

Straightforward...NOT EVEN Close!

Typical ATF answers. Questions #1 is not even straightforward!!

1. Is ATF aware of the new 3-D printing technology producing firearms?

ATF routinely collaborates with the firearms industry and law enforcement to monitor new technologies and current manufacturing trends that could potentially impact the safety of the public.

Non-resposive your Honor!

A few months ago I remember reading about a guy who had a traveling CNC setup. It was completely programmed to produce an AR lower IIRC. For a Fee he would drive to a persons home, said person would haev a block of aluminum of the appropriate dimensions and the man would show them how to operate the CNC machine and let them machine their own AR lower based on the ATF rules are mentioned. As long as they did it themselves and did not sell the whole thing was supposed to be legal.
Interesting concept, what was produced had no trail and no government knowledge in the least.

Note also that one only needs an FFL if one is "engaged in the business", and according to their definition:

The term "engaged in the business" means — (A) as applied to a manufacturer of firearms, a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured.

So it would seem that one wouldn't need a license to produce firearms and sell or otherwise distribute them without making a profit, with the principal objective of political protest against all the unconstitutional gun laws.

David, you may be interested to hear that the DEFCAD site is now headed with a red banner:

DEFCAD files are being removed from public access at the request of the US Department of Defense Trade Controls.

Until further notice, the United States government claims control of the information.

They are attacking the technology under ITAR (International Trafficking in Arms Regulation). This is the same statute that Phil Zimmerman was indicted under in the early 1990s. Meanwhile, the genie is out of the bottle. The CAD files are hosted on Bittorrent servers scattered across the planet.

URL is no good. ATF took down the letter you were trying to cite.

"Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future."

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html

Dave, do you have a copy of the Q&A, as ATF has pulled it off its site already. I really want a copy for my records, as we had a potential case regarding this issue. Thanks

The original Q&A was removed by ATF, but here is a cached copy:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hhyJZJqorCoJ:https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/pdf-files/atf-qa-on-3d-gun-priniting.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Interesting that the last Q/A says it's illegal to possess a firearm "any major component of which" is not identifiable on airport x-ray scanners. Query whether the magazine spring alone would be enough to spot a "printed" magazine with a scanner, and if not, whether the magazine is a "major component" of the firearm? (It suggests adding barium sulfate to materials in order to make them reflect x-rays, but I'd bet that's not easily done with 3D printers.)

Also query whether a printed lower receiver would fall foul of this prohibition? Clearly a printed lower assembled into a functioning firearm would pass the first part of the test, as even without its grip, stock and magazine there would be enough steel in barrel, bolt, trigger and other bits to show up. But a stripped lower probably wouldn't, and the answer seems to say that even if assembled into a detectable firearm, a lower receiver not detectable on its own would be illegal. (I gather that a reliable and durable lower receiver is not yet on the horizon for most printing technologies, but these technologies usually get cheaper over time, so some day . . . )

The whole point of ITAR is to protect tyrants, right?

3D printing technology seems to scare petty tyrants both foreign and domestic. Maybe if people like Kim Jong-un, Bashar al-Assad, Chucky Schumer, etc tried being a little less evil they wouldn't piss themselves at the thought of their subjects being able to print untraceable arms.

As of 13 May, the ATF page has been taken down.