Explaining the 3D-printed gun debate
By: Julia Berry Lopez
Tags: Second Amendment, Gun Violence, Defense Distributed, 3D Printing, Guns

First written and current as of August 28, 2018

The following is a writing sample of freelance work I have done. It is intended as an explainer about a current hot topic, not as a blog or opinion piece.

What is 3D printing?

Three-dimensional (3D) printing, also known as additive manufacturing, involves making a solid object from a computer file. The technology layers material, usually plastic or metal, on top of itself in a three-dimensional space to create the desired object. The technology can allow users to design and make almost any solid object they can imagine within size restrictions. The raw material must also be supplied to the machines, which are controlled from a computer.

Development of the technology began in the 1980s, and by the end of the decade some industries were using it. 3D printing technology can now be used for a variety of purposes and uses different materials. For example, researchers have successfully 3D printed functioning organs out of human cells. Companies can also 3D print edible chocolates and other items.

3D printing became more widely available over the past decade, with small home-use printers becoming available to the public for a couple hundred dollars, and larger, more elaborate ones for tens of thousands. (Printers capable of printing workable firearms likely cost thousands.)

In addition to 3D printers, there are also CNC milling machines, which can use a variety of materials and metals. In contrast to a 3D printer that adds material to make a part, a milling machine removes material from a starting piece to make a part, using a rotating tool. In other words, it carves out the desired object.

When did development of 3D-printed guns begin?

The first known 3D-printed gun that successfully fired was made by Cody Wilson in 2013. Wilson, now a 30-year-old Texas man, founded Defense Distributed (DD), a non-profit, open source company that has published 3D-printed gun designs online. According to its website, DD is a “private defense firm principally engaged in the research, design, development, and manufacture of products and services for the benefit of the American rifleman.”

DD shared the designs for the first entirely 3D-printable handgun, “The Liberator,” in 2013, which was downloaded about 100,000 times in only two days. DD has also shared computer-aided design (CAD) files for handguns and rifles, such as AR-15s. To comply with the U.S. Undetectable Firearms Act, which makes all plastic guns illegal, DD’s 3D-printed designs include a metal part.

Manufacturing the 3D guns is not as simple as “pressing a button and you have a gun,” Wilson has said interviews. Rather, it requires a person to make individual parts and then assemble them together. DD also sells milling machines for $2000, which come with preloaded gun designs and can manufacture each in about two days.

What’s happened since?

In May 2013, the State Department under the Obama administration sent a letter to DD that instructed the company to stop sharing the file for 3D-printed guns, arguing that the U.S. Arms Export Control Act (AECA) prohibited the distribution of the CAD files from being “exported” abroad via online downloads, without explicit government permission. DD removed the files from its site, although they remained elsewhere online.

DD, along with non-profit guns rights group the Second Amendment Foundation, filed a suit against the State Department, alleging that its interpretation of AECA was unconstitutional and “prior restraint” on freedom of speech. Prior restraint, in First Amendment law, is “government action that prohibits speech or other expression before the speech happens,” including through the use of injunctions and other means, according to Cornell Law’s Legal Information Institute. Courts “typically” rule such restraint to be unconstitutional, Cornell explained.

A judge ruled against DD’s request for a preliminary injunction to allow it to post CAD files, saying that while restricting First Amendment freedoms “unquestionably constitute irreparable injury” to the plaintiff, the government’s interest in national security and public interest “essentially collapse” the free speech argument. In an appeal, the decision was upheld, with a judge dissenting.

A multi-year lawsuit followed, and in June of this year, DD and the State Department reached a settlement agreement, under which DD would be permitted to distribute CAD files for any non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber, including AR-15 semi-automatic sporting rifles.

Then at the end of July, eight state attorneys general sued to stop the company from being able to post the designs online, and filed a complaint with the court requesting a temporary injunction against DD distributing the designs. On July 31, a federal judge in Seattle temporarily blocked the plans from being posted. Prior to the judge’s decision, more than 1,000 people had downloaded the designs. Then on Aug. 27, the judge extended the temporary ban.

On Aug. 28, Wilson announced that DD would begin selling the plans for 3D-printed guns, arguing that the judge’s order blocks the company from giving the plans away for free, but not from selling them.

What do advocates say?

Supporters of 3D-printed guns generally argue that both the First and Second Amendments give them the right to distribute and use the gun plans. Wilson said in an interview with PragerU that the intersection of these two amendments “should” grant his cause greater protections.

The First Amendment guarantees free speech, which Wilson and his supporters have said grants the right to share CAD files as a part of protected speech.

“I don’t believe that access to information is ever tremendously negative or a bad thing. I know that people can use information for bad things. But this isn’t a justification to … stop a publisher from speaking,” Wilson told CNN in an interview.

(Note: The case between the State Department and DD did not specifically answer whether CAD files were protected under the First Amendment. In an unrelated case, one judge concluded only that “code can merit First Amendment protection, although the scope of such protection remains to be determined.” In yet another case, a court ruled that CAD files were purely functional, not language, and thus not protected under the First Amendment. The legal precedent is still unclear, according to Harvard Law Review.)

The Second Amendment reads, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Courts have debated interpretations of what this means and whether it applies to individuals (“militia” or not). In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly interpreted the amendment as applying to an individual’s right to bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes.

Additionally, some of the arguments in support of 3D-printed guns mirror those of other gun-rights advocates — for instance, the argument that guns are necessary for protection.

Wilson also describes himself as a “radical individualist” and “anarchist,” and supports open-source information. He does not describe himself as a gun manufacturer, drawing a distinction between producing the plans and the physical weapons.

“The guns are downloadable,” Wilson said in an interview with CBS News. “The files are in the public domain. You cannot take them back. You can adjust your politics to this reality. You will not ask me to adjust mine.”

What do opponents argue?

Opponents of 3D-printed guns, in addition to those who oppose private gun ownership in general, have three main criticisms of the guns: they do not require background checks to make, they’re untraceable (they do not have serial numbers and are not registered), and they can be undetectable. Since 3D-printed guns do not require background checks, people who are prohibited from purchasing guns legally could still manufacture 3D-printed guns.

Undetectable guns, sometimes called “ghost guns,” will not be caught by metal detectors if they are made from all plastic. Current U.S. law already prohibits all plastic guns under the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988. That law bans guns that will not be seen by “walk-through metal detectors” standardly calibrated, and would “not generate an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.” (DD has incorporated a small metal part into designs to be in an attempt to comply with this law.)

“The president is committed to the safety and security of all Americans and considers this his highest responsibility,” the White House said at the end of July. “In the United States, it is currently illegal to own or make a wholly, plastic gun of any kind — including those made on a 3D printer. The administration supports this nearly two-decade old law. We will continue to look at all options available to us to do what is necessary to protect Americans while also supporting the First and Second amendments.”

What has the NRA said on the issue?

The National Rifle Association (NRA), which advocates for gun ownership rights, officially commented on the issue on July 31.

“Many anti-gun politicians and members of the media have wrongly claimed that 3-D printing technology will allow for the production and widespread proliferation of undetectable plastic firearms,” the NRA’s legislative director Chris Cox said. “Regardless of what a person may be able to publish on the Internet, undetectable plastic guns have been illegal for 30 years. Federal law passed in 1988, crafted with the NRA’s support, makes it unlawful to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive an undetectable firearm.”

Some critics have pointed out that the widespread production and use of 3D-printed guns could be financially detrimental to gun manufacturers. Some accuse the NRA of lobbying on behalf of manufacturers. The NRA denies this, saying it represents the “rights of law-abiding citizens.”

How many guns are there in the US?

The U.S. has approximately 393 million guns, according to a Small Arms Survey, which may not account for all illegally owned guns. The country has a population of 326 million people, according to the U.S. census.

These guns are owned by approximately 42 percent of the American population, according to a Gallup poll. That equates to roughly 50 million homes having guns. Gun-owning homes have an average of eight firearms each.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), U.S. gun manufacturers made more than 11 million guns in 2016 alone.

In 2015, there were 36,252 firearm-related deaths in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control, 12,979 of which were homicides.

Sources: ATF, 3DPrinting, ABC News, ACIC, ALL3DP, Arms Export Control Act, CBS News Interview, CDC, CDC, Complaint for Injunction, Cornell LII, CNN, CNN, CNN, DC v Heller, Defense Distributed, Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dept. of State, Gallup, Harvard Law Review, NRA-ILA, PragerU Interview, Preliminary Injunction, SAF, Settlement Agreement, Small Arms Survey, Smithsonian Magazine, The Guardian, Undetectable Firearms Act