Cody Wilson, who heads 3D printed firearms group Defense Distributed, has apparently received a federal firearms license officially allowing him to manufacture or sell the group's guns. Defense Distributed posted a Facebook photo of the license with a note reading "The work begins!" Wilson tells Ars Technica that his Type 7 license will allow him the same rights as other manufacturers: "I can sell some of the pieces that we've been making. I can do firearms transactions and transport." He'll be required to keep records on what he makes and sells, and he's not planning to sell anything at all until he receives a supplemental license to make a broader range of firearms.
While a number of enthusiasts have designed and created gun parts with 3D printers, Defense Distributed has been at the forefront of the practice, successfully testing 3D printed rifle lowers and high-capacity magazines with politically charged names like "Cuomo" and "Feinstein." It's also revealed plans to launch a commercial search engine for its catalog of 3D printable designs, which was originally created in response to MakerBot removing gun files from its Thingiverse.
As Defense Distributed's name implies, the political power of firearms printing is in its low barrier to entry: anybody with a consumer printer and some crafting know-how can make one of the parts, regardless of gun regulations. The organization itself has faced problems with companies who don't want to help support what they've called an "illegal" operation, so becoming licensed is a prudent move, albeit an apparent tradeoff for the staunchly anti-regulation group.
Comments
Wow.. what could possibly go wrong with this idea?
By The Werewolf on 03.17.13 4:48pm
Luckily, the 2nd amendment is still the law of the land.
By ssdeez on 03.17.13 4:54pm
*Unfortunately
By VoxMediaUser653627 on 03.17.13 5:00pm
You seem very willing to give up your liberty.
By ssdeez on 03.17.13 7:57pm
You don’t seem to realize that you already have.
(I’m sorry for the trollbait. It just sounded like the right thing to say, and I couldn’t resist)
By Juice1986 on 03.17.13 8:06pm
I do not own a gun nor do I care to ever own one so I am not giving up anything.
By VoxMediaUser653627 on 03.17.13 8:11pm
Hey! Everybody! Undefined_AJ’s house is a gun-free zone!
AJ, what you don’t even realize is the only reason you’re still safe is because the criminals do NOT know that you don’t have a gun. The last thing you want to be doing is blasting all over the Internet that you don’t have a gun.
Tell you what – try this: Put a sign in your front yard that reads, “This house is a gun-free zone.” See how long it takes for your whole life to change.
Now, imagine when this is no longer true. Imagine a day after they’ve taken your guns away. See, what you’re not being permitted to hear in the mainstream press is that, in countries where they’ve taken the citizens’ guns, literally every other form of crime goes up and goes up a lot. Stabbings, muggings, burglaries, etc.
Because, yes, while the “law abiding citizens” of those countries tend not to die from bullets, they die from everything else in higher numbers. It’s statistics doctoring, Piers Morgan is guilty of it like no other and it’s dangerous.
Enjoy your future. Because, in all likelihood, it won’t be a long one if they do get rid of guns in this country. You’ve been warned. Take it for what it’s worth.
By robcolbert on 03.17.13 8:48pm
How can one comment be so misinformed?
Homes with guns are broken into 10 times more than homes without guns
I know you right wing wackos do not believe in facts but can you try to not make shit up?
By garrett.butcher on 03.17.13 8:56pm
Cite your references now. Show me the proof that homes with guns are broken into 10x more than homes without. And, could that just be a side-effect of the fact that (arguably) most homes simply don’t have them?
How could one comment be so uninformed? My retort to that is, “How can one person be so damn gullible?” (yes, I am specifically talking to you).
Cite a reference and demonstrate the causality of what you’re offering as an argument to what I’ve said. Because you are either (a) wrong; or (b) the statistic doesn’t mean what you think it means. Period.
By robcolbert on 03.17.13 8:58pm
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
under “guns make homes safer”
By garrett.butcher on 03.17.13 9:01pm
Awesome! You found an infographic! Good job.
Let’s analyze its information, shall we?
Myth #5: Keeping a gun at home makes you safer.
Fact-check: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
• For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
• 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
• In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.
None of that says homes with guns are more likely to be robbed. Not one line.
Can you please find me the report stating that homes with guns are robbed 10x more than homes without them?
I will not argue that the presence of a gun in a home doesn’t lead to accidents. It most certainly does. But, that speaks to other sound arguments being presented here on the page about proper training, discipline, etc. I argue that homes with gun accidents simply didn’t take the necessary precautions to keep their home safe. And, yes, in their case – not owning a gun would have been the best choice.
The fact that an average moron with too much money who buys powerful weapons as toys ends up killing his own children has nothing to do with my right to protect my family properly. I’ve never had a gun accident. And, that’s because I take this very, very seriously.
I would, however, like to see the data on homes with guns being robbed 10x more than homes without them.
By robcolbert on 03.17.13 9:05pm
www.google.com
It is a known fact that criminals are more likely to target a house with a gun in it.
That is how the majority of guns that are used to commit crimes are obtained.
By garrett.butcher on 03.17.13 9:15pm
So, unable to cite a single actual report that you contrived to hold up your straw man, you point me at the generic Googlemobile as your answer? Okay – I’ll try…
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf
What if I point you to a specific government document showing gun violence on the steady decline in America since 2005? What if I did that?
What if that same piece of paper calls out knives, strangulation and even fire and poison as murder weapons? How are you going to ban fire and strangulation some day?
What if more people are killed by cars than guns? Do you ban the cars?
By robcolbert on 03.17.13 9:20pm
(sorry, I didn’t think it was worth addressing your dropped point of homes being robbed 10x more frequently just because they have guns in them – I’m not arguing against an unsubstantiated claim).
By robcolbert on 03.17.13 9:22pm
WWW.GOOGLE.COM
you can look it up yourself.
By garrett.butcher on 03.17.13 9:22pm
If you make a claim and expect it to be taken seriously, accepted, let alone responded to, you’ve got to substantiate it yourself. You cited a source for it earlier that said nothing about it. So far it looks like you made it up. It’s on you to prove otherwise, not your opposition.
By cmasontaylor on 03.17.13 9:25pm
IT is on many news articles. IT is a known fact that criminals target homes with guns more than homes without guns. Criminals like to obtain more guns
By garrett.butcher on 03.17.13 9:27pm
Garrett, if it’s so known, if it’s such common knowledge, then surely – you can provide at least one link to at least one report of the fact that robberies occur at 10X the rate for homes with guns as opposed to homes without them. And, until you do, I will assume you made this up and aren’t worth debating.
By robcolbert on 03.17.13 9:28pm
I have a feeling he tried to find one and could not.
By seanjuro on 03.18.13 1:31am
Well, I did find a report featuring an interview with an actual criminal who states that they quite specifically do whatever they can to target homes without guns. I don’t even know why I did that. It’s common sense.
As I said in that separate comment, I just couldn’t help myself. I guess I mostly wanted other gullible people on here tempted to believe that horseshit to have at least one factual account. Because that insane stat…a tenfold preference toward homes with guns…is simply not real.
It only exists in the mind of garrett.butcher, and until proven otherwise, that’s what I’m standing by – especially given all I’ve presented here.
I didn’t have to do this. I don’t even own a gun. I just happen to be awake and know what’s actually trying to happen in this country. And, no – I’m not having any of it.
By robcolbert on 03.18.13 1:36am
If you’re not going to, I might as well. Any statistic like that is almost impossible to actually get, because I’d guess that a huge majority of those homes have guns just because of the constant robberies. It’s sort of hard to judge causation in cases where it’s impossible to actually control the test.
By hythaam on 03.17.13 9:25pm
That is literally why I won’t even address the topic further. Thank you for the concise solution that I am simply not good at providing :)
By robcolbert on 03.17.13 9:27pm
Well, we could certainly conduct research with controls for crime prior to acquiring a weapon as opposed to after acquiring the weapon, as well as controls for crime in the general area, trending crime in the general area, and so on. The problem is: garrett clearly hasn’t done that, and is likely pulling this stuff out of thin air.
By cmasontaylor on 03.17.13 9:28pm
Except you know, interviews with criminals in jail where they have stated that they prefer homes with guns because it lets them obtain more guns
By garrett.butcher on 03.17.13 9:28pm
What interviews?
By hythaam on 03.17.13 9:29pm