The law is pretty clear cut in the U.S. about gun manufacturing. If you want to build the lower receiver of an AR-15, go ahead, but if you plan on selling it you need either a Type 7 or Type 10 Federal Firearms License. The rest of the AR-15 is just parts. If a "professional" makes them for you, whether or not he knows what they are, he better have a license or he could be committing a felony.
But in the hypothetical future where 3D printers are ubiquitous, if you sell a script to build the lower receiver, then does that count as selling one?
Reminds me of the case where Phil Zimmerman noticed that exporting crypto was a form of arms export, but exporting books was protected by the First Amendment. So he published the source code to PGP and shipped it.
IANAL but I know my way around US federal firearms law. I am not aware of any law or rulemaking which would classify, for example, CAD files describing a lower receiver as an item subject to firearms regulations. There exist books sold openly and without restriction detailing how one can make improvised firearms, some of which if constructed would be illegal for possession by American civilians. I'm sure this information has by now made it to the Internet as well. Up to this point, such materials are treated as speech and thus strongly protected by the First Amendment. I see no reason why 3D printer instruction files would be treated any differently, under current law.
It's not hard to imagine a Congresscritter raising a fuss over concerns of "children printing machine guns" or some such nonsense, and thereby introducing legislation to regulate such materials, including executable scripts for 3D printing machines. It's even possible to imagine such legislation passing the House and Senate. Our current president would likely sign any such legislation he was given. However, it is very difficult to imagine the legislation surviving a Supreme Court challenge on First Amendment grounds.
Then again, I said the same thing about the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, and SCOTUS upheld that 5-4, so what do I know.
> However, it is very difficult to imagine the legislation surviving a Supreme Court challenge on First Amendment grounds.
Next month is the TEN YEAR anniversary of the USA PATRIOT act, the legislation that abolished the fourth amendment. Checks and balances only work when they, well, balance.
Legally, the only difference between a CAD file of the AR-15 and an AR-15 repair manual should be that one is actionable by a machine. They're both a description of the operation of the object (and thus speech).
And let's go even further into the hypothetical future where we've made great advances in AI. Also, for whatever reason, a court has found weapons CAD files to be illegal. What will the law say when a machine is intelligent enough to decipher the same human-targeted AR-15 repair manual and reconstruct one from that information?
The machinery that makes firearms isn't unique or special. Some of the tooling may be, but I can't imagine all the CNC mills an lathes are purpose specific at firearms manufacturers' plants.
As with most things firearms related, the offense occurs with the action. In this case, the transaction. You can manufacture a firearm with standard machinery and suffer no penalty. The same applies for a printer capable of printing a firearm (or parts). It is when you sell those firearms (or parts) that you have broken the law.
If it is against the law to possess a firearm in your location, then it doesn't matter how you made it. Possession remains illegal.
I see your point, but I am more thinking if 3D printers became household item then the cost, time, and specialized knowledge prerequisites that exist currently to make your own gun are all gone.
