It seems that for as long as there have been readily available 3D printers, there have been moral panics about their being used to print firearms. The latest surrounds a Washington State Legislature bill, HB2320, which criminalises the printing of unregistered guns. Perhaps most controversially, it seeks so impose a requirement on printers sold in the state to phone home and check a database of known firearms and refuse to print them when asked.
This has drawn a wave of protest from the 3D printing community, and seems from where we are sitting to be a spectacularly ill-conceived piece of legislation. It’s simply not clear how it could be implemented, given the way 3D printers and slicing software actually work.
Oddly This Isn’t About Firearms
The root of the problem with this bill and others like it lies in ignorance, and a misplaced belief in the power of legislation. Firearms are just the example here, but we can think of others and we’re sure you can too. Legislators aren’t stupid, but by and large they don’t come from technology or engineering backgrounds.
Meanwhile they have voters to keep happy, and therefore when a moral panic like this one arises their priority is to be seen to be doing something about it. They dream up a technically infeasible solution, push to get it written into law, and their job is done. Let the engineers figure out how to make it work.
How To Hack Public Scrutiny When It Matters
Our governments have a mechanism in place to curtail this, public scrutiny. In short, when they embark on something stupid the public is supposed to push back. It comes as in this case from the people themselves, but perhaps most effectively it comes from the press corps which surround the legislatures.
A politician doesn’t really care much if a bunch of 3D printer enthusiasts are angry about something, but I promise you he’s all over it if it’s lead story on the local news. This should protect us, but the flaw when it come to tech stories is that the ignorance is not confined to the legislature. You don’t get to be a political press corps journalist without being pretty good at your job, but unfortunately for us, being pretty good at that job doesn’t include knowing anything about tech. Instead they have finely tuned noses for politics, public policy, and other things that are central to that beat, so when they encounter a tech story they are more likely to follow received opinion than what’s really going on.
Over the years here at Hackaday we’ve seen it time and time again, with respect to drones, right to repair, the DMCA, and even from time to time, 3D printed fiearms. We’ve even wished for technology-aware political journalists in the past too, but inevitably they don’t read Hackaday. Perhaps we should therefore examine how our community approaches stories like this in the first place, and change what we do. We’re good at complaining using our channels, perhaps it’s time to try theirs instead.
The Press Release As A Magic Bullet
There exists a tried and tested method for getting things in front of journalists, it’s called a press release. It’s a standardised form for making a point to a journalist, and when done correctly it can be very effective. How to write one is beyond the remit of Hackaday, but there are many resources online to help you. An appropriate one here is the UK Crafts Council’s one for makers. Take your concerns, distil them into a well-written and reasoned paragraph, and package it up as a press release.
Don’t send them personally, instead send them as an organisation, for example I wouldn’t write one as Jenny List. Instead I’d represent my hackerspace or my 3D printing society. As someone who’s written a few in my time as well as editing other people’s ones, I’d advise you to avoid writing either a rant or a manifesto, be factual and concise. If you appear to be a random crazy, your release will go in the round file.
When you have your press release, identify the channels where it will have the most impact. I might start with the local and regional papers and broadcasters, and find the journalists whose beat intersects with my target. The trick is writing up the technical aspects of the issue clearly enough that everyone can understand it, which is no mean feat, but it is infinitely easier when you already understand the tech than when you don’t.
This may seem like an odd departure from a 3D printing story, but perhaps like many of you I am tired of seeing badly thought out tech legislation passing without question. Perhaps it’s time our community learned some of the techniques used by the people who do mange to have influence, after all it can be easier than you think. We have the knowledge. It’s our responsibility to bring it to the people when necessary.
Sure, legislators and members of the press may be smart folks, and are not subject matter experts in this field or necessarily any other than their own.
But then shouldn’t they have a duty to acquire an understanding of that which they seek to regulate? At the very least, they should consult someone who can understand the subject for them. I guess we didn’t write that into law, so nobody cares. Even if it is law, some people won’t care either.
Why are people so stupid and uncaring?
I think the problem might be when legislators think they understand something well enough to legislate about it. Perhaps a sort of Dunning-Kruger issue. They’d much rather say “Yes, I understand this” than say “I’m not sure I understand this; let’s bring in an expert.” That’s my uninformed opinion.
Yes, however, the information they get is biased.
The experts they have come from the industry and represent their own interests. For example, a company like Stratasys may well be able to comply with the requirement to tether all their 3D printers to government servers and pretend to detect firearms, so they’re just happy to support the regulation – it hurts their smaller competitors who can’t.
The information asymmetry is the problem: the more centralized the government, the less they know about what’s happening around the country and the less they are able to find out by themselves, so the more they become dependent on biased reporting or start to ignore the reports altogether because it’s too much work.
John Gall called this the “coefficient of fiction”, which represents the fraction of real information that fails to reach the administration. Most large scale administrative systems and governments operate with a coefficient of fiction very close to 1. Some may even exceed it.
The only surprise here is how long it’s taken for this to happen, given that SOME PEOPLE have been trying to manufacture a moral panic over this for over a decade now.
Remember the golden rule folks: don’t make the people in charge have to make a new rule.
I am now aware of this golden rule. The good old “a few a-holes ruining things for the rest of us” song and dance. The same thing is happening with e-bikes now too.
The fun part of legislating 3d printing: Teaching the slicer to correctly identify intended function for a part. No more narrow cylindrical shapes for anyone, too dangerous. And 3d printed Star Wars cosplay blasters? Forget it!
Just to clarify, in the opening line where you say HB2320 “criminalises (sic) the printing of unregistered guns”, you’re assuming a false premise. In the United States, outside of a few exceptions (NFA items and perhaps an unconstitutionally restrictive state law I’m unaware of) there is no such thing as a firearms registry and firearms are not registered. Please don’t spread that misconception further because it damages the perception of the status quo regarding firearms rights in the USA.
“Just to clarify” in the U.S. when a FFL serializes a ghost gun he/she/it must keep a record, which I agree is not the same as registration. Looks like you can’t just serialize it yourself and be done with it. Quick and dirty google summary:
*Lifetime Requirement: Under current ATF Rule 2021R-05F, many FFLs are effectively required to keep records for the life of their business, though paper records older than 20 years can be stored at an off-site, inspection-ready warehouse.
Out of Business: If an FFL goes out of business, all records must be sent to the ATF’s Out of Business Records Center.*
I’m well acquainted with the rules governing recordkeeping for an FFL, and it seems as though you agree with me that there is no such registry in place (in fact, the institution of one would be illegal). So why counter-signal me, if not to muddy the waters and make people believe there is a registry? My point is to clarify that there is not a registry so that people won’t be fooled into thinking that it’s normal or acceptable to have to register your guns. We don’t need misinformation in the discussion of gun rights.
Aw jeez, Edith. Go #1 up a rope. I gave NO MISINFORMATION. If it’s in someone’s records, it’s findable.
You make a lot of assumptions in this one post, and I prescribe a solid dose of SHUTTY.
If people are coming here to learn or be informed about U.S. gun rights, it’s already game over for them.
If you’re an FFL (depending on license) it’s not a ghost gun, it’s just a gun you’ve manufactured.
Making a firearm at home does not require an FFL nor serialization. Of course, you can’t sell or otherwise transfer it to anyone else. But you can definitely make one by federal law. At least that is my understanding, not a lawyer.
You DO realize that Jenny is British, right? And that there are sometimes differences in spelling between American and British English? If you’re in doubt, type the spelling you disagree with into your search engine of choice and look at the results.
British English is kinda the OG, and American English is the new kid in town. As a Canadian, I can generally spell and speak in both variants of my mother tongue. ;-)
I think the (sic) is there to point out the British viewpoint of the author of the quote.
Also, in many ways American English has changed less than British English, and the spelling standardized in different ways at around the same time. Neither is newer.
and both have changed back and forth to and from each others spellings a number of times over the years for a whole list of words.
Ex dictionary nerd here as well as your Hackaday scribe.
Much of what you know of American English and spelling was standardised by Noah Webster when he wrote his dictionary. His pet peeve was removing what he saw as French influence in American English, hence your weird spellings. :)
Lighten up, it’s a joke. UnderSampled is correct, it was to call attention to the fact that Jenny is probably not very familiar with US gun rights and thus her mistake was understandable.
Thanks for the explanation. What you were doing there went over my head, and I just now heard the ‘whoosh’. I apologize, and here’s my obligatory “Doh!”
Imagine, being British and telling Americans and about freedom from government, tyranny, and giving up your right to own firearms.
Ie: get the hint.
Imagine being ignorant enough to believe British folks can’t have firearms or are less free than you.
We can have guns if we want, but unlike some folks we don’t make it a cornerstone of our personality / national identity and hence gun ownership is on a par with chainsaw ownership – those who need one tend to have one, mostly in the countryside. A few folks have them for a hobby, the rest of us have no interest in them.
You can have rifles or shotguns. Handguns are limited to long-barrelled pistols or muzzle-loading guns. Any of these can only be owned with a valid reason, such as pest control on farmland, membership in a shooting club, and for hunting purposes if you own huntable lands or have documented permission from someone who does.
You cant have guns to defend yourself.
You cant have guns to protect your business.
In most (28/50) US states you can buy a rifle, shotgun, or handgun from another person without any license, permit, or background check.
At least in the case of gun ownership you most certainly are not as free as Americans.
You know you could have the king back, right? No, seriously, please take him! :)
In the words of the Nac Mac Feegle “Nae King! Nae Quin! Nae Laird! Nae Master!”*.
With apologies to the late Queen, who seemed from over here to stay out of things for the most part.
*Hat tip to Terry Pratchett
I live in the U.S. and my state outlawed the manufacture of ghost guns, which would certainly include printing. Also illegal is possession of such. It’s just another stupid law like the ones on magazine size but it’s in my best interest to obey it. Oregon is similar, it is illegal to manufacture or possess. From a facts on the ground point of view, such laws don’t reduce crime, they make people criminals who were not criminals the day before. As a wise man once said “When I was a kid this was a free country.” As another man once said “They’re not sending us their best” which applies to my state’s and Oregon’s legislatures.
I recall how we were tried to claw back the secret DoE decision to close the charter school that one of my kids was going to. Whilst rambling through my 5-minutes of short-lived fame, I’ve taken a good look at the four faces looking pass me into the void. The decision was done and over with, and our talking was just the safety valve opened to vent some hot air and nothing more.
I also recall that quite late into the meeting (~20 minutes no less) there was a locomotion at the entrance door, first plain cloths whoever they are walked in, scanned the perimeter, then some kind of dignitary wafted in, standing in the door frame, backed by more plain cloths strongmen and bunch of interns. Entire procession stood quietly for maybe 15 minutes, not entering the mess hall, nor making any moves or sounds, just observing the troublemakers (us, taxpayers, parents, the ones who are paying their salaries). It has been some long, LONG while since I’ve seen THAT many grownup men standing in quiet formation for THAT long (think military parade shortly before). They observed, quietly exchanged muted utterances and left just as unexpectedly. Mafias do that, btw, in pretty much all soap operas where they need to add hidden drama. I wasn’t thrilled, because discussion was in terms of “you morons f***ing up our kids FUTURES!”. Nothing came of it, of course, charter school was closed, and year alter – another charter school, and then another one.
Point being the fig they care about what they are “regulating” – all they do is tweak all the buttons they could and see what they can get away with.
so you’re saying the discussion was in terms of “”Won’t somebody please think of the children?”?!?!?!? Ooooo-kay!
Local DoE and children they supposedly care about are two different entites. Local bureaucrats shiny careers into the stars and beyond easily trample any sane thoughts brought forth by parents paying the taxes.
Average US kid costs ~$20K annually. Multiply that by the number of kids and get that average US public school receives $20K x 300 = $6M = 6 million tax-free greenbucks. That’s actually a small-sized school, only 300 students, and mega-schools (K12) number around 1000 students, so that’s $20K x 1000 = $20M = 2- millions tax-free moneys. Into which blackhole those disappear after paying mandatory things (property rent, electricity, upkeep, etc etc) is my question.
We also have this nebulous “board” of full-time-paid “elected members” who work maybe three-five days a month while receiving handsome salaries. I’ve met them in person (unrelated, we were planning volunteering activities – the school was moving from one building to another, and parents were helping) and found them to be mostly aloof and basically part-time free riders of no particular/noticeable merit.
It goes like this, if a DoE bureaucrat cannot explain to the kids WHAT IS IT that he/she is exactly doing, then unlikely he/she is needed. Not to me, parent, to the kids he/she supposedly “cares about”. Simple.
This comes to mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkmuI5W694o
“Legislators aren’t stupid…”
I believe strongly in the Forrest Gump realization, “Stupid is as stupid does.”
Indeed.
With a few exceptions, legislators are usually ignorant about the subjects they wish to regulate beyond a narrow briefing report generated by their staff geared more towards “how will this effect the numbers for my re-election?” than actual understanding; or a party position-paper.
“Legislators aren’t stupid…”
“Reader, consider yourself to be a US Congressman. Now, consider yourself to be a blithering idiot. But I repeat myself.”—Mark Twain
“…ill-conceived piece of legislation”
WA state and scabattle are absolute masters of that.
Typical paranoid power hungry tyrants / commies…
Probably more there than elsewhere there is a blatant disregard for the Second and “Shall Not Be Infringed” is a totally incomprehensible concept…
As a WA resident, I recognize the thin end of the wedge.
I expect this is much more about controlling what ordinary people can create, make , and share than any real impact of ghost guns. The only reason they focused on guns, is because they’d be laughed out of office if they tried any of the other stock reasons…CSAM and “think of the children”…or the evils of encryption with the “We need to stop terrorists.”
All these efforts are aiming at the same thing, they want a permanent foothold on your computing devices, and the ability to control who you share/disseminate content with. Once they get a ban on printing ghost guns, they’ll add additional items too. Next will be magazines, then lock picking tools, then any other item deemed to be dangerous, then finally making your own John Deer tractor parts. One guy with a Bridgeport is controllable, 200K with Fusion360, the internet, and 3D metal printers are not.
” and 3D metal printers”
so many people spending five to six figures to make ghostguns, such a problem these days /s
I don’t get it neither. Why spend $6000000 on a metal printing laser when you can buy a $1000 chinese lathe and make STEN machine gun. Sure it won’t be as good as Tommy Gun, AK-47, MG42 or even humble MP5 but it still can send lots of lead downrange quickly as long as you can swap magazines (or make it belt fed) because that’s what it was designed for.
Then theres the guys in the Philippines with drill presses, bench grinders and handfiles making 1911 knockoffs. https://youtu.be/IvCa2L0yGQ4?si=0BhXfXRZv3t3nCIF&t=343
Barrel aside, an AK isnt much harder to build than a sten. A “stamped” receiver doesnt require much more than a drill press, saw, and welder to make.
I just find it funny that this guy thinks “One guy with a Bridgeport is controllable, 200K with Fusion360, the internet, and 3D metal printers are not.”
If metal 3d printed firearms start showing up on the streets the list of owners of capable machines is astronomically lower than the list of guys with access to basic machine tools.
You can also easily trace where they get their metal powders from, since there aren’t a whole lot of suppliers for that stuff.
Back in my youth (when dinosaurs roamed the Earth), and the Soviets were getting shot at in Afghanistan, people in the hills were replicating AKs with foot powered lathes. Making weapons takes will, technology just speeds things up (ask any of the guys killed or wounded in prison). Which just makes bans naive at best, and sinister at worst.
Also, you can print metal parts with a standard FDM printer, starting with metal filled filament that is sintered after printing in a temperature controlled kiln.
@jodell
Youve obviously never used FDM based metal material. Sintering parts is not as straightforward as just slap it in a kiln and out comes a near net shape part. There is a built in flaw to the process. The process of sintering and consolidating causes shrink. This shrink is not entirely uniform. The parts are not dimensionaly stable. There is distortions, and warping. Its almost always necessary to design with loose tolerances unfit for the use in precise applications like firearm manufacture. It would take an unreasonable amount of trial and error, redesign, intentional over build, and post machining to use the tech to build parts to the required tolerances.
Or you could just mail order an 80% lower receiver and factory manufactured parts. Not in all states.
Ewwww! I hope I haven’t given away too much misinformation!
As of early 2026, 80% lowers are regulated under 2022 federal rules (2021R-05F), which reclassified most “80% kits” as firearms requiring serialization and FFL transfers.
“As of early 2026, 80% lowers are regulated under 2022 federal rules (2021R-05F)”
So it goes. Thank you for the correction.
Brought to you by the folks who classified shoestrings as machine guns.
Aside from the barrel what parts would you need a lathe for? Certainly not the sear. Or the receiver. Or the slide. Or…
You don’t even need it for the barrel. I’m not sure how much I can say here (not naming model numbers etc) and not have my comment deleted but a piece of tube, a 3D printed jig, and a homemade EDM setup will get you rifling. The fighters in Myanmar made use of this in the thousands.
A lathe is useful for cutting the bore, though a short barrel like one used in a pistol can probably get away with underdrilling and reaming to size before rifling
Button draw systems are industrial level overkill required for high volume production. EDM is high tech geek play.
The technique used since the 1800s still works fine today.
Youtube has several videos of people using homemade rifling systems. These simple systems range from wood, to welded scrap steel. Systems for small barrels like those used in pistols can even be 3d printed. Its not rocket surgery. Cutting one groove at a time with a spiral guide is simple as.
i bet the tooling to do actual gunsmithing comes in significantly less than five figures.
Stop eating Preparation H, people. I can’t believe we need a label for that.
Politicians don’t do what you want unless you’re a billion dollar lobbying group. It’s better to just design tech that is resistant to their meddling (i.e. build your own printer).
Typical gun legisilation that will only apply to law abiding citizens. I’m sure criminals are quaking in their boots (again).
the database approach probibly wont do a damn thing because of novel design. model repos are wishful thinking. there is maybe a 5% chance that the thing i need to print has been done before, and if it has, it wont be to my specs. so i got to make it myself. even if a design comes through the police evidence room, they wont have the source file. they wont stop criminals from using old printers to make gun parts and selling them. and if you have to go to the black market anyway, might as well buy a real gun. frankly i dont need to break the law to obtain guns.
you might be able to fight this on intellectual property grounds. any design you make is yours and you are not required to submit your privately owned ip to said database. if your printer software sends everything you print for evaluation, then you need a huge agency to ferret through millions of model submissions for guns, so you can probibly also fight it by making the job impossible by submitting a very large number of models. the bureaucrats would just demand an inspection fee for everything you print. then you got the printer manufacturers on your side.
never mind the fact that 3d printed guns are not all that practical. never mind that you are going to inconvenience a lot of innocent people and cost them a boatload of money in compliance fees. the only crime here is the one committed by the bureaucrats, theft, once again walking off with the general public’s hard earned money to “solve” a made up problem.
actually super practical these days. SWIM traded a couple printed 80% lowers for a truck tool box. Fully printed, sure, impractical. But to come full circle, the regulation of guns has always been dumb, and enacted by dummies. Why? Because apparently a lower receiver IS a gun – and printing one is pretty easy. Fascinating. Who would have thought that regulations for simple machines, written by people who couldn’t understand simple machines and thus live in mortal terror of them, would turn out to be so…peculiar.
I would argue that if someone fairly good at printing 3D guns challenged me to a race to get an illegal gun, that I would win. Not because I have dark underworld contacts, but that I would just go to the scuzziest bars in town, look for sketchy people, and ask around.
I’m willing to bet, that in less than 5 hours, I would have a perfectly serviceable weapon. The only countries where this might not be so easy, would be those where crime of all sorts is really low; and 3D printed guns are just not going to be a big problem anyway.
Also, being someone who has extensively used various guns over the years, they really are tricky to fix. If you don’t have the weights, etc, exactly correct, and the proper metals rubbing against the proper metals, they will just gum up. For example, if you take a well made basic hunting rifle and saw off a few inches of its barrel, the accuracy will plummet. This is because the rifle’s entire action is based on certain weights, movements, bending, etc is all well tuned.
Even something as basic as a 1911A does a little dance with its barrel as it cycles. Everything has to be just right.
Even 3D printing such a gun in metal is going to take a huge amount of redesign and tuning to make it fire shot after shot and not be endlessly jamming. While some new designs may be able to take much of this into account, it still is unlikely to result in weapons which can alter present day crime statistics.
Maybe a revolver wouldn’t be too hard to 3D print, but at that point, you are dealing with weapons technology which is 150 years out of date. While arguably still dangerous, I would suggest that this is not going to be be much of an impediment to evil-doers. And for people really bent on things like mass shootings, they will figure out a way to do their thing; and in many countries this will be as easy as going to the gun store. In countries where they are worried about terrorism, then smuggling guns will still be available as an option. I can’t imagine the flood of guns which are going to hit Europe after the Ukrainians win; a zillion russians with no money and lots of weapons.
I genuinely believe that any lobbying efforts to restrict 3D printers in some way has some other group behind it. My guess is that it will be someone trying to protect some form of IP. You can’t print your replacement car parts, or things which allow you to put a non standard filter into your fridge, or something. This is just the usual case of “Think of the children.”
The WA Governor and former Attorney General has waged a war on the Bill of Rights for decades. This particular bill is part of the system he uses to exhaust the funds of legal foundations that protect liberties. There 6 to 8 of these kinds of bills a year from a $3 tax per round of ammunition to requiring a liability insurance policy for each firearm you own. None of them pass (or courts trow them out). But it takes money to stop them because WA is a one-party state like California an the legislature would pass them if no one was looking. These should be classed as frivolous and not allowed. But one-party rule…..
The government should be afraid of people, not the other way around!
They are, hence the legislation. Luigi’s alleged weapon was printed. Watch the testimony around the drone restrictions too.
Reading all the comments makes me think it is just a matter of time when quantum computing is outlawed in the US. Not for the Big Bad Corporations, for the Average Sam.
Quantum computing would have to be useful first.
Just like thermonuclear energy it’s always 10 years from now cum
You probably meant Fusion. Fusion power is always 10 years from now. Thermonuclear energy was 72-75 years ago.