3D printed Gun restrictions lifted per DOJ ruling.

[Farmer Br0wn]

So what you're saying is if one were to track down Seagal in Russia and convince him to teach them his "deadly stuff" then went out and judy chopped some fool into bolivian that he wouldn't be held responsible for unleashing such techniques out into the world?

Unfortunately, there would be no saving Humanity from the power of the Judy Chop.

 

[SMillard]

I posted this earlier in this very thread, but it applies to your concern:

If I open a blacksmith shop and start making swords, and teaching other people how to make swords, I'm not liable if someone else of their own volition makes a sword and harms someone else, even if they utilize my methods of making a sword.

I'm not responsible for the actions or decisions of another person. The same applies to Mr. Wilson.

well if you "addressed it before" congratulations you misunderstood the question twice. Or you are just jumping at the opportunity to piss on anyone that has any concerns about this issue. I'm a gun owner, I shoot, I work on my own guns and I'd be very hesitant to use something like that liberator. If it were a lower receiver that isn't going to be subjected to the same stresses as the barrel I might consider it, but probably as a novelty.

Swordsmithing is passing down techniques for the manipulation of metals, it's basically specialized blacksmithing. It isn't the specific instruction of a specific item. Regardless if you teach someone techniques that are inherently dangerous or fraudulent you could be held liable if you for example teach someone to make "combat ready swords" but in fact are teaching them how to make a wall hanger with a retaining pin to hold a shortened tang into the handle and when the person goes to show it off on video the blade detaches and injures someone, there would potentially be liability.

This isn't a "people should sue the ammo manufacturers when their relative or they are victims of a mass shooting" question. It's regarding catastrophic failure of the product.

My point wasn't if someone downloads the plans and makes a gun then goes out and shoots someone else. My question is if the product has a catastrophic failure and someone gets a face full of plastic if the gun fractures or explodes in someone's hand.

Now, want to try again?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Swordsmithing is passing down techniques for the manipulation of metals, it's basically specialized blacksmithing. It isn't the specific instruction of a specific item.

One could argue that 3D printing is nothing more than the manipulation of plastics (for now).

Specific Instructions exist for lots of blacksmith items, there's absolutely no reason 3D printing should be placed in a different moral or legal category.

Regardless if you teach someone techniques that are inherently dangerous or fraudulent you could be held liable if you for example teach someone to make "combat ready swords" but in fact are teaching them how to make a wall hanger with a retaining pin to hold a shortened tang into the handle and when the person goes to show it off on video the blade detaches and injures someone, there would potentially be liability.

What you're talking about in this instance is fraud, and personal negligence.

If I'm selling lessons in the ability to craft "X", but instead teach you to craft "Y", that is an instance of fraud, and completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

In the instance of you swinging a sword and accidentally injuring someone else, the only person at fault is you.

This isn't a "people should sue the ammo manufacturers when their relative or they are victims of a mass shooting" question. It's regarding catastrophic failure of the product.

My point wasn't if someone downloads the plans and makes a gun then goes out and shoots someone else. My question is if the product has a catastrophic failure and someone gets a face full of plastic if the gun fractures or explodes in someone's hand.

Now, want to try again?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclaimer

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

More worried that the most likely to take advantage of this will be kids (once the access to the metal technology becomes more common)

I was ripping porn files onto floppies and selling them with copies of Web browser CD's I would get from neighbors who had no fucking clue what that junk mail was. This was in 94'

I'd probably rip a few gun makes too if I had access to the technology

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

well if you "addressed it before" congratulations you misunderstood the question twice. Or you are just jumping at the opportunity to piss on anyone that has any concerns about this issue. I'm a gun owner, I shoot, I work on my own guns and I'd be very hesitant to use something like that liberator. If it were a lower receiver that isn't going to be subjected to the same stresses as the barrel I might consider it, but probably as a novelty.

Swordsmithing is passing down techniques for the manipulation of metals, it's basically specialized blacksmithing. It isn't the specific instruction of a specific item. Regardless if you teach someone techniques that are inherently dangerous or fraudulent you could be held liable if you for example teach someone to make "combat ready swords" but in fact are teaching them how to make a wall hanger with a retaining pin to hold a shortened tang into the handle and when the person goes to show it off on video the blade detaches and injures someone, there would potentially be liability.

This isn't a "people should sue the ammo manufacturers when their relative or they are victims of a mass shooting" question. It's regarding catastrophic failure of the product.

My point wasn't if someone downloads the plans and makes a gun then goes out and shoots someone else. My question is if the product has a catastrophic failure and someone gets a face full of plastic if the gun fractures or explodes in someone's hand.

Now, want to try again?

Liability would make sense if he was producing and selling, or even just selling the plans. It's free information for people to do what they choose. Those choices are on them.

 

[SMillard]

Liability would make sense if he was producing and selling, or even just selling the plans. It's free information for people to do what they choose. Those choices are on them.

I don't know if the fact that no money changes hands negates any liability. He is also selling some items. The main reason I have concerns is that the Liberator pistol has an extremely short barrel making me think that there are concerns with over pressurization at the barrel that could cause catastrophic failure.

One could argue that 3D printing is nothing more than the manipulation of plastics (for now).

Specific Instructions exist for lots of blacksmith items, there's absolutely no reason 3D printing should be placed in a different moral or legal category.


What you're talking about in this instance is fraud, and personal negligence.

If I'm selling lessons in the ability to craft "X", but instead teach you to craft "Y", that is an instance of fraud, and completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

In the instance of you swinging a sword and accidentally injuring someone else, the only person at fault is you.




https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclaimer

I understand the disclaimer, but I've also seen cases where dump trucks have disclaimers stating "not responsible for broken windshield due falling debris" or other legal indemnifying statements that when presented in court don't hold water. Now i do know this guy was a law school drop out and from what I've heard is very smart, then again he considers himself an anarchist. I deal with it all the time in contracts where people put in bullshit verbiage that on the surface I'd never agree to but when I have presented it to a lawyer they have basically said it's an empty statement that has no validity. So in other words just because someone says "you can't hold me responsible for anything bad that happens from your interaction with me or my product' doesn't mean they can't be held responsible.

personally I think of this as nothing more than a novelty at this point, I am surprised that the NRA has supported this since it has the potential to cut directly into the profits of the manufacturers that are the main financial force behind the NRA.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

I don't know if the fact that no money changes hands negates any liability. He is also selling some items. The main reason I have concerns is that the Liberator pistol has an extremely short barrel making me think that there are concerns with over pressurization at the barrel that could cause catastrophic failure.



I understand the disclaimer, but I've also seen cases where dump trucks have disclaimers stating "not responsible for broken windshield due falling debris" or other legal indemnifying statements that when presented in court don't hold water. Now i do know this guy was a law school drop out and from what I've heard is very smart, then again he considers himself an anarchist. I deal with it all the time in contracts where people put in bullshit verbiage that on the surface I'd never agree to but when I have presented it to a lawyer they have basically said it's an empty statement that has no validity. So in other words just because someone says "you can't hold me responsible for anything bad that happens from your interaction with me or my product' doesn't mean they can't be held responsible.

Roads are a public space. There's several reasons why your example doesn't exactly work.

I could post hundreds of instances of disclaimers being upheld in court, but that's not really the point of all of this.

For one reason or another, you seem determined to box Mr. Wilson into a position where he is responsible for the actions of completely unrelated people. Mr. Wilson isn't responsible for the actions of any other person other than himself, no matter how many 3D printed gun files he puts on the internet.

To hold someone responsible for the actions of another is an affront to the concept of Justice.

personally I think of this as nothing more than a novelty at this point, I am surprised that the NRA has supported this since it has the potential to cut directly into the profits of the manufacturers that are the main financial force behind the NRA.

The NRA's power comes from its easily mobilized voting base. The NRA gives politicians a paltry sum compared to the pharmaceutical and medical lobbyists, etc.

The membership of the NRA isn't giving any objections to 3D printed firearms, because it falls in line with our goals of greater individual liberty.

When gun control is rendered completely useless due to advancements in technology, the excuses to not expand gun rights for the peaceful and law-abiding, rings hollow.

 

[Quipling]

Liability would make sense if he was producing and selling, or even just selling the plans. It's free information for people to do what they choose. Those choices are on them.

There are some really interesting product liability questions here. A normal case has a 1.) designer, 2.) manufacturer, and 3.) distributor. All of them are participate and benefit from the transaction or chain of transactions.

This guy is a designer, but he's distributing for free. Manufacturers are distributed and don't give him anything. And they're also the end-users, so they implement the defective design. I don't know if we've had anything like it before, so there's a question of whether individual laws apply. That will get hammered out state-by-state.

My guess is that he could be liable under a negligence theory of product liability in states that find a duty-of-reasonable-care even without a sale. Or possibly some common-law theory of negligence.

The courts generally don't like the sort of aggresive caveat emptor that you're proposing, so I don't think that defense flies all the time. But the nature of 3d printing makes it more compelling. Generally, it'll be limited to cases where it's clear that the manufacturer-user is aware of the risk.

 

[SMillard]

Roads are a public space. There's several reasons why your example doesn't exactly work.

I could post hundreds of instances of disclaimers being upheld in court, but that's not really the point of all of this.

For one reason or another, you seem determined to box Mr. Wilson into a position where he is responsible for the actions of completely unrelated people. Mr. Wilson isn't responsible for the actions of any other person other than himself, no matter how many 3D printed gun files he puts on the internet.

To hold someone responsible for the actions of another is an affront to the concept of Justice.



The NRA's power comes from its easily mobilized voting base. The NRA gives politicians a paltry sum compared to the pharmaceutical and medical lobbyists, etc.

The membership of the NRA isn't giving any objections to 3D printed firearms, because it falls in line with our goals of greater individual liberty.

When gun control is rendered completely useless due to advancements in technology, the excuses to not expand gun rights for the peaceful and law-abiding, rings hollow.

I don't think it's an affront to justice to hold someone responsible for the failure of their product if said product fails.

there are rumblings in the NRA actually regarding this topic, but they have for the most part tried to stay out of it mostly because I think they are still mulling over their position.

As far as your last statement, if that were the case than the war on drugs should have been made useless from the simple fact someone could grow their own Marijuana plant. So I don't think it's going to be resolved as simply as you stated but we will see. Again, I think it's interesting, but I'd still have my reservations about using such a device for the reasons I stated before.

 

[surrealworlds]

What are you guys arguing about? Of course he would not be liable. He is sharing information freely on the internet. He is not advising anyone to do anything. What they choose to do with said information is their choice.

Lets try something. Im going to give you instructions on how to make a small explosive.
Take a 2 liter bottle, fill it 3/4 of the way with water, add aluminum foil(just roll it into little balls), and pour in some powder draino. Shake up and throw. It will explode and pour out some acidic liquid that will burn the shit out of you.

Now, if your dumbasses go out and burn your face off, am i liable? Fuck no. If you think so, try it and sue me.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

I don't think it's an affront to justice to hold someone responsible for the failure of their product if said product fails.

A: Mr. Wilson wouldn't be the one manufacturing said product.

B: As it was pointed out by another astute poster in this thread, Mr. Wilson isn't selling anything to anyone, and he isn't telling anyone to do anything. He's simply exercising his first amendment right of free speech.

C: It's absolutely an affront to Justice to hold someone responsible for the actions of an unrelated person.

You have yet to disprove that notion.

there are rumblings in the NRA actually regarding this topic, but they have for the most part tried to stay out of it mostly because I think they are still mulling over their position.

Mr. Wilson has removed gun control from the spectrum of possibilities in this world.

This makes it impossible to defend the position of disarming peaceful and law-abiding people the world over. There's no argument for gun control that would be true in the face of that reality.

As far as your last statement, if that were the case than the war on drugs should have been made useless from the simple fact someone could grow their own Marijuana plant. So I don't think it's going to be resolved as simply as you stated but we will see.

The War on Drugs has been a complete an abject failure.

The term "War on Drugs" was first brought into existence by Richard Nixon on June 18th, 1971.

Since then, the availability, purity, and market share of drugs has only gone up.

By every conceivable possible measure the War on Drugs has been a complete failure.

In what way did you think bringing this up helped your argument?

Again, I think it's interesting, but I'd still have my reservations about using such a device for the reasons I stated before.

I would personally never use such a device, but it would make a very interesting conversation piece amongst friends.

 

[ultramanhyata]

I’m still 90% certain it’ll blow up in your hand the 2nd time you try and shoot it

I think the hardcore 2A posters here should have a contest. Film yourself firing rounds from a 3D printed gun. The guy who can fire the most rounds prior to blowing off his hand wins.

 

[Gutter Chris]

Im a lot more worried that these will blow peoples hands off like 2 gun corkey(BLAM!) than I am they will be responsible for crime waves

 

[SMillard]

A: Mr. Wilson wouldn't be the one manufacturing said product.

B: As it was pointed out by another astute poster in this thread, Mr. Wilson isn't selling anything to anyone, and he isn't telling anyone to do anything. He's simply exercising his first amendment right of free speech.

C: It's absolutely an affront to Justice to hold someone responsible for the actions of an unrelated person.

You have yet to disprove that notion.


Mr. Wilson has removed gun control from the spectrum of possibilities in this world.

This makes it impossible to defend the position of disarming peaceful and law-abiding people the world over. There's no argument for gun control that would be true in the face of that reality.

A. I addressed that point already with you, providing instructional information still risks exposure to liability.
B. I addressed his statement in one of the same responses to you, lack of payment for said service or information does not negate any level of potential liability.
C. there are many examples of affronts to justice in our legal system, that doesn't stop people from trying to cash in.

I don't have to disprove a notion, I'm expressing potential exposure to liability. I'm stating that if there is a catastrophic failure of one of these devices he's exposed to litigation, at no point did I say he'd lose or win said litigation, just be open to it and the way the courts are handling this it leaves him in a precarious position that there is potential for him to lose it, and even if he doesn't lose.... at the least be bogged down with legal expenses that will have just as much monetary impact than if he loses the case.

to your last statement, this is an evolving event that has not settled yet, I'd say it's a little premature to be popping the champagne in celebration.

The War on Drugs has been a complete an abject failure.

The term "War on Drugs" was first brought into existence by Richard Nixon on June 18th, 1971.

Since then, the availability, purity, and market share of drugs has only gone up.

By every conceivable possible measure the War on Drugs has been a complete failure.

In what way did you think bringing this up help your argument?

I'm well aware of the history of the war on drugs, the simple fact is while it has been a colossal failure we have an administration that has decided to double down on the policy. The policies and hysteria against Marijuana also pre-dates Nixon by the way. So "In what way did you think bringing this up help your argument" well quite honestly, it amazes me that you don't see it. The fact is it is a failure, it is impossible to ever control, but it is STILL a policy. That is the point that helps my argument, just because something is stupid, just because something is impossible to control doesn't mean someone (the government) won't still try to do it. So if you want to lecture me about how the failure of the war on drugs validates your position regarding this topic, do me a favor and copy Jeff Sessions and let's see what if any response you get.

I would personally never use such a device, but it would make a very interesting conversation piece amongst friends.

That's the one thing we both agree on.

I also think more people are making more of it in the sense that the cost of the 3 D printer, the medium for production of the weapons is probably more expensive than purchasing a manufactured quality controlled firearm in the first place, unless someone is planning on mass producing them for sale purposes I don't see a real viability for the market other than as a curiosity.

 

[Quipling]

What are you guys arguing about? Of course he would not be liable. He is sharing information freely on the internet. He is not advising anyone to do anything. What they choose to do with said information is their choice.

Lets try something. Im going to give you instructions on how to make a small explosive.
Take a 2 liter bottle, fill it 3/4 of the way with water, add aluminum foil(just roll it into little balls), and pour in some powder draino. Shake up and throw. It will explode and pour out some acidic liquid that will burn the shit out of you.

Now, if your dumbasses go out and burn your face off, am i liable? Fuck no. If you think so, try it and sue me.

It's not that clear-cut. The question is you're talking about is whether he has a duty of care to people who will use his instructions. There's a split between different states on when a duty of care attaches. Under some laws, the tenuous nature of the relationship would prevent it. Other laws are much more relaxed.

Imo, your example has a different problem: there's an easy defense that you've given yourself. You told someone that they're making an explosive that will burn their hands. They're assuming the risks of the explosive because they know what it does. But when you download plans for a firearm, you're assuming the risks of a firearm only. Not of a device that might explode your hand. That's not something that firearms should do.

A better form of your example might be if you gave instructions that were purportedly for how to make . . . some other thing. Let's say a cleaning solvent. But, because of flaws in the instructions, it's actually the explosive caustic mess you just described.

I think liability might attach at that point if someone were injured. It's a cool question, actually, and there's no obvious legal answer yet.

 

[Prefect]

Any machinist with a stamping press could turn out better guns than what you get with a 3d printer. I bet even if you had a metal 3d printer that did sithering, you would still have an inferior product to what you could stamp out with a press. There are military weapons designed to be press friendly to make manufacturing easy. The uzi was designed for the press. some versions of the ak-47 were as well.

 

[SMillard]

Any machinist with a stamping press could turn out better guns than what you get with a 3d printer. I bet even if you had a metal 3d printer that did sithering, you would still have an inferior product to what you could stamp out with a press. There are military weapons designed to be press friendly to make manufacturing easy. The uzi was designed for the press. some versions of the ak-47 were as well.

You are absolutely correct, the british sten gun was a mass produced stamp metal production proven to be equal in some regards and superior in others to their German counterparts, the Uzi you mentioned was actually based off a Czech submachine gun that was also stamped and the original AK 47s were milled but the Soviets realized it was taking too long and costing too much to produce one gun so they started stamping them and actually the stamped models proved to be more resilient than the milled. The Israeli Galeal which is basically a combination AR platform with an AK platform also used stamped manufacturing.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

There are some really interesting product liability questions here. A normal case has a 1.) designer, 2.) manufacturer, and 3.) distributor. All of them are participate and benefit from the transaction or chain of transactions.

This guy is a designer, but he's distributing for free. Manufacturers are distributed and don't give him anything. And they're also the end-users, so they implement the defective design. I don't know if we've had anything like it before, so there's a question of whether individual laws apply. That will get hammered out state-by-state.

My guess is that he could be liable under a negligence theory of product liability in states that find a duty-of-reasonable-care even without a sale. Or possibly some common-law theory of negligence.

The courts generally don't like the sort of aggresive caveat emptor that you're proposing, so I don't think that defense flies all the time. But the nature of 3d printing makes it more compelling. Generally, it'll be limited to cases where it's clear that the manufacturer-user is aware of the risk.

Thanks. It's definitely an interesting case. Not sure any further defense than the First Amendment should be required. There's no commerce or warranty involved, nor specific encouragement to print the gun. Just plans that he worked on and is now sharing for the benefit of expanding human knowledge. Clearly it's meant to be a starting point for ideas and innovation, not a product for consumers.

But yeah, who knows. Since it's gun related there will be many with a hard-on to stick it to the guy. But I doubt most of them would feel the same way if it were some guy putting up blueprints of his shaky house online. People would expect one to assume some risk when using plans unapproved by a professional. There's no reason for anyone to think the Liberator is going to function as dependably as a firearm that's been extensively tested and bulk-manufactured.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You are absolutely correct, the british sten gun was a mass produced stamp metal production proven to be equal in some regards and superior in others to their German counterparts, the Uzi you mentioned was actually based off a Czech submachine gun that was also stamped and the original AK 47s were milled but the Soviets realized it was taking too long and costing too much to produce one gun so they started stamping them and actually the stamped models proved to be more resilient than the milled. The Israeli Galeal which is basically a combination AR platform with an AK platform also used stamped manufacturing.

MAC-10's were stamped as well I believe.

 

[SMillard]

MAC-10's were stamped as well I believe.

you're right, they were. pretty sure the old US army 45 cal M3 grease guns were as well. Pretty much anything boxy looking or with really sharp angles to it was most likely stamped. People have the misunderstanding that stamped= poor quality. Some really good long service firearms have been stamped.