back to article Bloke thrown in the cooler for eight years after 3D-printing gun to dodge weapon ban

A Texas fella banned from owning firearms is now behind bars for trying to 3D print a gun for himself. Uncle Sam's prosecutors announced this week that a federal district court in the Lone Star state sent 42-year-old Eric McGinnis down for eight years for possessing an unregistered short barrel rifle and possessing ammunition …

  1. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
    Flame

    It's Texas

    The template for the movie Idiocracy.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's Texas

      I raise you this story from NYC - a "prankster" holds up a shop with a fake gun, in the ensuing gun battle with police, one of the policemen is shot by his own side:

      https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/12/us/new-york-police-officer-killed/index.html

    2. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    3. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: It's Texas

      But in Texas, if the police hear someone shooting in woodland, don't they just grab a couple of four packs and go over and join in the target practice? Maybe shoot some long haired hippies or something?

  2. Giles C

    So he is banned from owning a gun for 2 years, and 1 month before the end of the ban is so desperate for a gun he makes one himself and then gets arrested again.

    I would say as thick as 2 short planks but I think I am insulting the intelligence of the wood....

    1. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

      He is getting into Congress Critter levels of stupidity. Also, generally the law technically reads possess or purchase a firearm. So he could not get one as gift or borrow one from a friend and if the he is properly entered into the system he cannot buy one from a dealer.

      One of the easiest felonies to nail someone over here in feraldom is possession of a firearm by a someone legally barred from having one (numerous ways to get on the list). This often results in the ferals poking around and giving a lengthy vacation in Club Fed. Not only is dimbulb in trouble with Texas but the ferals could make his life even more interesting.

    2. cyberdemon
      Paris Hilton

      If he is barred from owning a gun, how can he legally buy ammo?

      You know, those explosives wrapped in brass, with the bullets wot kill people.

      Surely that's more important than a piece of plastic that he downloaded?

      Paris, cos even she can see this glaring loophole..

      1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
        Boffin

        @cyberdemon

        To answer your question...

        Only the sate of IL has what is known as a FOID card. You cannot be in possession or buy ammo without presenting the FOID card.

        Other states, you can buy ammo without any checks.

      2. Baldrickk Silver badge

        People say guns don't kill people, people do.

        And so a degree they are right. The bullets do the damage, the person shoot them, the gun is caught in the middle as a tool.

        Granted, one essential to the act, but as cyberdemon says, bullets are also dangerous, why are they sold to people who can't buy guns?

        1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

          because too much bureaucracy! thinking like that result in thousands of pointless rules that just take up space in the rule book and cloud the actual rules.

          i.e because they havent got guns* , so whats the point checking?

          *in theory

          Same reason you dont have to show your driving licence to buy fuel.

          1. MrXavia

            "Same reason you dont have to show your driving licence to buy fuel."

            But you can buy fuel for multiple purposes, and the garages selling fuel should always check you are filling in a legal container (UK at least).

        2. werdsmith Silver badge

          People say guns don't kill people, people do.

          Because people who say this are being deliberately obtuse.

          A handgun is designed and manufactured as a tool for the primary purpose of damaging human tissue, and with such energy that it is likely to kill. If people don't have the handgun then killing becomes an up close and personal matter and thus much harder to do.

          1. Kubla Cant Silver badge

            People say guns don't kill people, people do.

            As the late Robin Williams pointed out: "But the guns make the bullets go really fast. If you went into a convenience store with a handful of bullets and said 'Give me all your money, otherwise I'm going to push these bullets into your head', people would just laugh at you".

    3. LucreLout Silver badge

      So he is banned from owning a gun for 2 years, and 1 month before the end of the ban is so desperate for a gun he makes one himself and then gets arrested again.

      Yeah, you just can't legislate for that level of stupid.

      Given what amounts to a very temporary ban on his ability to own a gun, I just can't see the wisdom in circumventing it - if you're that desperate to fire a weapon, grab a flight to Mexico/Europe and do it legally.

      4 more weeks and you can fill your boots / gun rack.....

  3. Ole Juul Silver badge
    Coat

    Undeterred

    This guy obviously wasn't going to let some silly court order stop him in his quest for jail time.

    1. IceC0ld Bronze badge

      Re: Undeterred

      Build it, and they will come ..............

      'they' being the man obs ...........................

      1. rmason Silver badge

        Re: Undeterred

        Quite a small amount of Jail time too.

        Imagine if the 'poor guy' was any shade of brown? Carrying an illegal weapon with a list of US Gov "targets".

  4. ma1010 Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    And here's the kicker...

    He's now a convicted FELON and will have a lifetime ban on possession of a firearm anywhere in the U.S. All because he couldn't wait one bloody month for the protective order to expire.

    This guy makes Paris look like Einstein.

    1. Mephistro Silver badge

      Re: And here's the kicker...

      Upvoted for the first paragraph, but Paris, contrary to appearances, has a high IQ. Remember, "posessing a high IQ"!="being mentally stable and/or a nice person", unfortunately.

    2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: And here's the kicker...

      Actually even convicted felons who have served their sentence may be able to own guns again.

      It depends on what he or she was convicted ... So in general yes, convicted felons can't own firearms. but its not a universal truth.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: And here's the kicker...

        Usually, that requires getting the felony conviction expunged: not a sure or easy thing. Besides, breaking a court order represents a betrayal of trust; that's not going to look good should he try.

    3. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

      Re: And here's the kicker...

      People with felony convictions more broadly account for 8 percent of the overall population and 33 percent of the African-American male population

      wow! bit of a discrepancy there !

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: And here's the kicker...

        Interesting statistic...

        Is it because police are more likely to arrest black males and pursue convictions?

        Is it because courts/Juries are more likely to convict black males?

        Is it because more black men commit felonies?

        (And if this is the case, what are the social/economic reasons for this)

  5. Bush_rat
    Facepalm

    But Background Checks Don't Work!

    Hopefully stories like this can help change that narrative and allow the US to actually do something about gun violence.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
      Boffin

      @ Bush Rat ...Re: But Background Checks Don't Work!

      You have no clue about the US and its patchwork of gun laws.

      As someone who is a legal firearms owner living in Chicago, I can easily tell you about the gun laws in Chicago, Crook County , and the state of IL along with the latest round of stupidity.

      I can also tell you the gun laws in IN, WI, OH and AZ. Also SC. (Other states too...)

      The issue of gun violence has nothing to do with background checks or the dangerous looking black rifles.

      In Chicago... we have had over 500 shooting deaths per year that are for the most part from handguns. (Only a handful of shootings involved 5.56 NATO or 7.62x39mm rounds)

      Of those shootings. 99% of the guns were either illegally bought/sold on the street, or passed around through the gangs.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

        Of those shootings. 99% of the guns were either illegally bought/sold on the street, or passed around through the gangs.

        How outrageous! We need another law, obviously. /sarcasm

      2. Milton Silver badge

        Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

        7.62 x 39? Do you rate the possibility that there a lot of Russian weapons in Chicago?

        1. paulll Bronze badge

          Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

          Dunno about Illinois but here in Alberta, Canada, old Russian SKS rifles are very popular amongst range rats, mostly by virtue of the fact that they and crates of 7.62*39 are dirt cheap.

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

            "old Russian SKS rifles"

            Useless pieces of shit. Can't even keep 'em within an inch at 100 yards. Still, I guess accuracy is relative ... at least they are better than the all but useless AK series.

            "mostly by virtue of the fact that they and crates of 7.62*39 are dirt cheap."

            Ah, yes. The "spray and pray" technique of accuracy.

            1. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

              Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

              Just get a decent long-barrelled gun designed to fit the 7.62*39 round. Just remember to get the parts properly safety checked by a competent gunsmith and you're good to go! The longer the barrel, the MORE accurate your 7.62*39 rounds will be!

              I prefer .303's and .308's because large sharp-clawed and/or big-toothed carnivores are very active where I work and play, so i'd rather have the range AND accuracy of a bigger and longer gun for basic personal and group safety reasons.

              1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
                Boffin

                Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

                A .308 (7.62 NATO) isn't that good of a round these days... Don't get me wrong. I have an M1A and its fun to shoot, but in terms of long distance accuracy... I've got an old 300WM hunting rifle and a Rem7 hunting rifle both shoot flatter and faster than the .308.

                Or you could go for a 6.5CM which looks like a good replacement for the .308 shooting flatter and faster with more down field energy.

                The point I was raising was that some of the street gangs also have AKs and AR-15 pistols/rifles that they use to provide heavier firepower than just pistols. But its pretty rare for them to be used. One of my wife's co-worker's son was in the wrong place at the wrong time (A robbery in a drug store) and lost his lower leg due to an AK round. (He spent almost a year in and out of a hospital trying to save it.)

                1. Oengus Silver badge

                  Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

                  I had a rifle that used 7.62 NATO rounds years ago. It was accurate to 900 yards. Using open sights (no telescopic sights allowed) with a target that had an 18 inch bulls eye on a 6 foot square target and I would regularly score 95 out of a possible 100 points from 20 rounds (and I wasn't nearly as good as some others using the same type of rifle). With the correct rifle 7.62 NATO ammunition has good long distance accuracy. The only thing was, it was a single shot bolt action so the rate of fire was fairly low.

                  1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
                    Boffin

                    @Oengus Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

                    1 MOA at 100yrds = 1 inch.

                    1 MOA at 900 yrds = 9 inches.

                    So 18 inch Bullseye is 2 MOA.

                    Camp Perry is 600 yrds w iron sights for military rifles. (There are other classifications)

                    As to accuracy, 900yrds is close to maximum range for accurate fire.

                    W a good bolt action, you can get out to 1000 yrds.

                    Now compare that to 300WM. Which is accurate out to 1200yrds and beyond.

                    6.5CM (Creedmore) is also accurate out to 1200+ yards.

                    Again, I have a .308, mine is scoped and semi-auto but is accurate to 1 MOA.

                    Its a good round.

                    .308 is still the standard for police snipers. However, that's changing and for the Military, while the .308 is used (including upgraded M-14s) the next gen is going to be 6.5CM For longer distances you have 300WM, .338s and of course the .50BMG.

                    If I had to choose between a Surgeon w 5R barrel and in a McMillian Stock in either .308 or 6.5CM? I'd take the 6.5 or a Rem .260

            2. werdsmith Silver badge

              Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

              Can't even keep 'em within an inch at 100 yards. Still,

              So that's the difference between hitting in the nose or an eye then.

            3. paulll Bronze badge

              Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

              Yeah... I think anyone who cares is already familiar with the reputed accuracy of such weapons.

              And I don't think anybody paying $250 to pick their gun from a crate of grease is doing so with serious aspirations of emulating the feats of the fella from that there Bradley Cooper film. I'm told they're good for,"skeets," though. I gather skeets are clay pigeons. Not sure.

              But it remains that there seems to be a supply and demand for cheap machines that put a cheap 7.62*39mm pointy piece of metal roughly in the direction they're pointed, making a loud bang in the process.

        2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

          @Milton ... Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

          Actually there are quite a few AKs and variants.

          Not to mention US made AKs...

          So yes, there are a lot of weapons that fire a 7.62x39mm round floating around Chicago.

          If you don't believe me, check the police reports.

      3. ThomH Silver badge

        Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

        Surely it's a but for question? That the crimes tend to happen with illegally-obtained firearms doesn't prove much about the effectiveness of gun laws — you'd need some magical like-for-like way of comparing quantity and expected outcome of crimes with and without such gun controls as exist?

        Otherwise you could have a law that, also magically, eliminated 99% of gun crime. It'd still be true that 99% of guns involved in crimes were obtained illegally. But that wouldn't mean that the law was ineffective.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
          Boffin

          @Thom H.Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

          Again you really don't know much about Chicago and the fact that between the two Mayor Daleys (father and son) It was illegal to be in possession of a handgun within city limits. Unless you were law enforcement, active military, or an Alderman.

          This was true until the SCOTUS case McDonald v. City of Chicago where the Chicago law was struct down. (Then Daley made it extremely difficult to get a handgun. I know because I went thru the process)

          Gun laws only keep law abiding citizens from owning guns. Criminals don't care.

          1. John Savard Silver badge

            Re: @Thom H.@ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

            Yes, that's true. And from the viewpoint of criminals, having law-abiding honest citizens armed, instead of having to wait for police to show up, is not necessarily a good thing.

            But gun laws do reduce things like officers getting shot when responding to domestic violence calls.

            And a bit better enforcement of existing gun laws could well have prevented the recent shooting of five workers by a convicted felon, who illegally obtained a gun, and went on a rampage because he knew he was about to be fired.

            Gun laws don't deal, though, with use of guns by real criminals, like drug traffickers. So we need a different kind of law for them. How about penalties for involvement in organized crime that make one's head spin, sufficient finally to be an effective deterrent? Plus more sensible regulation of things like wiretaps that protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens, but still allow the police to make it virtually impossible to run an organized crime racket of any kind.

            Of course, you can't do it all with sticks instead of carrots. Make sure the economy is working, so almost everyone who is reasonably willing to work can get a decent job at a good living wage. (There will be a few unfortunates unable to obtain a marketable skill, who will need other kinds of assistance, of course.) That is not the case now.

            1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
              Boffin

              @John Re: @Thom H.@ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

              Yes, that's true. And from the viewpoint of criminals, having law-abiding honest citizens armed, instead of having to wait for police to show up, is not necessarily a good thing.

              Clearly you don't live in Chicago.

              Did you hear about the woman who was at a bus stop, when a kid attempted to commit armed robbery?

              Yeah, she had a conceal carry permit, pulled her gun and shot him... He ran away, collapsed and died from his wound.

              There are other stories where law abiding citizens with CCW permits have also defended themselves or helped to stop a crime.

              With respect to the Aurora shooting...

              1) He was able to get his FOID card because the felony conviction was in a different state and it hadn't been propagated from Mississippi (I think) so it was never flagged.

              2) When he went and purchased the gun, again the conviction wasn't in the system at the Federal level.

              3) It was when he applied for a CCW that it popped up.

              So the first issue is the ability of states to share data with each other and the feds.

              Then the second issue... the State of IL never went after him to get the gun he owned. Its not just that there's a lack of funds, but its also a very dangerous task. You never know how they will react.

              You seem to also go off on a tangent. Here the guy was going to be fired. He brought the gun in to the meeting and the minute they fired him... he started shooting.

              So he had a job.

            2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

              @John Re: @Thom H.@ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

              Police getting shot by legal gun owners?

              No, not really. In Chicago, there hasn't been that as an issue. I'll admit it has happened but its not frequent nor a good reason to violate the 2A.

              Like I said, I live in Chicago. Have been here for the past 25+ years.

              I can tell you that the gun ban didn't work. Only criminals had guns. In fact during the ban, a disgraced school administrator committed suicide 2.5 blocks away with an illegal gun.

              As to gun law enforcement... sure I'm all for longer prison terms for violent criminals

          2. LDS Silver badge

            "Gun laws only keep law abiding citizens from owning guns."

            No, also they decrease the total number of firearms available, and those on the black market as well, and thereby increase their prices. That's because usually a large number of illegal guns have been first bought legally and then stolen, lost, sold, etc.

            Thus it become even for criminals harder to obtain a gun. It's also far easier to seize guns because or you have a permit, or you can't have one. So even criminals have to care.

            Also, encounters with cops become friendlier, because unless they have good reason to think otherwise, they do not fear you are armed.

            1. Eddy Ito Silver badge

              Re: "Gun laws only keep law abiding citizens from owning guns."

              Given there are an estimated 300 million guns in the US plus who knows how many being printed or machined off the books it's unlikely that any new law is going to put a dent in the numbers of firearms available. It certainly won't make it harder for criminals as this very case proves.

              Also, I doubt interactions with police is going to get any better until they tone down current procedures and training. Too many cops today have the attitude that everyone else is just a criminal who simply hasn't been caught.

              1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
                Boffin

                Re: "Gun laws only keep law abiding citizens from owning guns."

                A company actually printed a .45 caliber 1911 metal gun on a 3D printer.

                Works like a charm and was a test to show that its 3D printer can build hi quality prototypes for real use.

                The owner wouldn't say how much the gun cost to manufacture only that it would have been far cheaper to go to a gun store and buy a dozen .45ACP pistols.

                So printed guns is more fantasy than fiction. Heck for $220 I can buy a brand new Ruger 10/22 rifle that will out perform any printed gun.

            2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

              @LDS ... Re: "Gun laws only keep law abiding citizens from owning guns."

              You clearly don't know jack.

              Google Zip Guns

              You can make a dangerous weapon real easily and to say you want to confiscate all guns... you've never been a rancher. If you did, you'd understand the need for a trunk gun.

      4. Timmy B Silver badge

        Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

        "Of those shootings. 99% of the guns were either illegally bought/sold on the street, or passed around through the gangs."

        So what that says is that criminals can't legally get guns and the gun laws are working.

        1. Omgwtfbbqtime Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

          You could also say that gun sales to criminals are not taxed.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

          So more effort is needed policing illegal trade in weapons then!

          1. Timmy B Silver badge

            Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

            Exactly. That is where the money should go. Not in more legislation, when the legislation is currently working. It's like knife crime here in the UK - you will never get rid of legal knives - every kitchen has dozens - but you can, with time, effort and money create systems that lower stabbings (like parts of Scotland have).

            1. M.V. Lipvig

              Re: @ Bush Rat ...But Background Checks Don't Work!

              In Britain the criminals just moved to acid. When you ban acid, they'll find something else. None of the laws banning inanimate objects are solving the problem of violent people though, are they?

    2. macjules Silver badge

      Re: But Background Checks Don't Work!

      You might well be able to protect against such imbeciles as the subject of this article but I very much doubt that, excepting a total UK-style ban on weapons, that the USA could possibly legislate against "Nörgler, Querulanten und Behördenhasser" (nigglers, grumblers and haters of the administration) in the way that the Swiss have *.

      It seems to me that the way to deal with gun violence is both as the Texas authorities did, i.e. monitor the idiots and revoke their right to bear arms if necessary, and to better educate people on how to carry a weapon, how to keep weapons secure and (most important) how to use a weapon.

      * Even the Swiss have experience of gun-related massacres (Zug cantonal massacre in 2001).

      1. overunder

        Re: But Background Checks Don't Work!

        Yeh, to repeat the obvious, it's not really about how they get the gun, but who gets the gun. You could very well make guns, but never use them, only sell them.

        Now that the vast majority of the world has access to a cast iron skillet and 3-D printer, just about anyone can make ballistic weapons up to at least rifles. Well, just about anyone who reads any given Trig I book.

        Whatever, here in the USA, I'm not worried until people start making things that tick-tock or fluid things that make you sick (that's when the hinges really do fall off).

      2. JJKing Bronze badge

        Re: But Background Checks Don't Work!

        * Even the Swiss have experience of gun-related massacres (Zug cantonal massacre in 2001).

        Yeah but not 2, 3 or 4 every week.

    3. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: Background Check Did Work!

      Mr McGinnis demonstrated that he could not be trusted with a gun. He tried to buy a gun and was refused. He made a gun and was sent to prison. So far he has not shot anyone that we know about despite being violent to at least one woman. Gun laws will continue to make it difficult for him to shoot anyone.

      Gun laws are a mixture and a mess and not a complete solution but keeping guns out of the hands of violent morons is still a step in the right direction.

      1. scrubber
        Coat

        Re: Background Check Did Work!

        "keeping guns out of the hands of violent morons is still a step in the right direction"

        And yet the police are armed as a matter of course.

    4. LDS Silver badge

      Re: But Background Checks Don't Work!

      Still, it looks that the man who killed five people in Aurora, Ill. was barred to own a gun, but it still had one...

      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/us/aurora-illinois-shooting.html

      1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

        Re: But Background Checks Don't Work!

        guess why he had one:

        had his state weapons permit revoked years ago because of a felony assault conviction .....

        ....Still, they said, Mr. Martin’s gun — a .40-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun with a laser sight — was never taken away.

        So he didnt even have to beg borrow steal one!

        It reminds me of the current case of returning Jihadis over here - when one of the girls travelling to Syria to become a ISIS bride was intercepted and forced off the plane in UK , they then sort of assumed job done and forgot to issue any sort of punishment..

        1. Gerhard Mack

          Re: But Background Checks Don't Work!

          What crimes should she be charged with?

          1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

            Re: But Background Checks Don't Work!

            well , i think she was actually carrying sensitive info of some sort,

            Also , dosent this state have a list of organisations that are "actually" terrorist,

            and by being a member of one you are instantly guilty of , um , something ?

            I'm sure ISIS qualifies.

        2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

          Re: But Background Checks Don't Work!

          As someone who actually lives in Chicago (Aurora is a suburb...)

          He got a FOID card, meaning he passed the first State of IL requirement.

          He then bought the gun meaning the Feds didn't catch the felony conviction.

          It wasn't until he tried to get a CCW that the State of IL got his prior conviction from MS in to their system.

          All the state did was send him a letter.

          They never sent anyone to collect his FOID card or his pistol.

          So you can cue the lawyers who would have grounds to sue the state of IL.

  6. redpawn Silver badge

    Gun show

    At many gun shows you can purchase a gun with no checks what so ever. No ID check no forms, just cash. No need for test firing near the police. However this guy sounds like a candidate for the Darwin award.

    1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
      Boffin

      @Redpawn ... Re: Gun show

      That's not completely true.

      First, if the seller at the gun show is an FFL holder, they must complete a background check. This is the law.

      If you're doing a private sale... it depends on the firearm. If its a pistol, you are obligated to check to see if the individual has a valid drivers license for the state. You cannot sell a handgun or purchase a handgun from a different state. Long guns are a different matter.

      Also if you're selling a firearm, you want to go to a local gun store and have them run an Federal check and complete the sale. (There's a charge for this, however its minimal considering the alternatives.)

      So please get your gun facts straight.

      We just had a shooting here in the Chicago areal (Aurora IL...home to Wayne and Garth)

      Already idiots are jumping on the gun grabbing bandwagon ...

      1. redpawn Silver badge

        Re: @Redpawn ... Gun show

        Yes but it is unclear how many of the sellers at gun shows are licensed dealers. Different rules apply to the "private" sales which are common at "Gun Shows". All you have to do is claim it is your hobby and not a business to sell without background checks, so get facts straight. Quit reading NRA propaganda!

        The "Gun Show Loophole" is still large enough to supply an endless stream of mass killings.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

          @Redpawn ... Re: @Redpawn ... Gun show

          Wow your ignorance is truly astonishing.

          Again, I gave you the legal answer about what happens at a gun show.

          If the person selling has an FFL, they must complete a background check. Many gun shows now have a booth where you can get one done for a fee.

          Even with a private sale, there are still rules.

          You have to check the person's driver's license. If they are from out of state, you cannot legally sell them a hand gun, private sale or not.

          And no, you can't claim that your selling is a hobby. Already there are cases where people have been charged with selling without an FFL and they tried the 'hobby claim'. It doesn't fly.

          And while I am not a member of the NRA or ILRA, I am a legal gun owner and very familiar with the gun laws in IL, WI, IN, OH, SC and AZ. (other state laws too)

          Oh and if you had done your homework the guns used in the killings on Chicago streets are not coming in via 'gun show loopholes) Nor did the gun that killed the police commander (actually the district where I live) come from a gun show... The Wisconsin man who sold the gun was charged in a crime from the sale.

          Do you really want to continue to show your ignorance?

          1. LDS Silver badge
            Facepalm

            "You have to check the person's driver's license"

            Oh, great....

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Redpawn ... Gun show

          tl;dr you can't sell at a gun show without the relevant licenses, so no such loophole exists.

          1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

            Re: @Redpawn ... Gun show

            Actually you can.

            Many moons ago at a fair where people were selling antiques and what not, A guy was selling his .30-06 hunting rifle. It would have been a private sale.

            Today, We would have gone to a local gun store to do the background check. Its done for the protection of both parties.

            But again, most criminals do not buy at gun shows.

            They could via strawman purchases, but even those could go thru gun stores as well.

            That's how they catch the so called 'hobyists' who buy from stores and sell via private sales.

            1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

              Re: @Redpawn ... Gun show

              gun shows? wtf ? A restricted item , and you just gather together at some venue and all the laws go out the window?

              Thats like doctors showing up in nightclubs and handing the drugs out!

              or a "Beer festival" where age limits for some reason dont apply.

              Why are the rules at your "gun shows" not the same as every other day, possibly with some extras added on?

              1. J. Cook Silver badge

                Re: @Redpawn ... Gun show

                People collect them for the novelty, because some of them are antiques, rare, or have an interesting history behind them. Same as just about everything else, really. The laws are still enforced at these shows, I assure you. (at least the reputable shows strictly enforce the rules, at least...)

                The last private sale I was involved with, the seller wanted to see my driver's license and (because I had one at the time) concealed carry permit. The firearms I've bought from a store all had federal background checks done via the usual forms and 15 minutes of waiting for the fed's systems to spit out an answer.

                Unless you are a crook and/or 'know a guy', getting a firearm legally without a paper trail is slightly harder than people think.

                1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
                  Boffin

                  @J Cook Re: @Redpawn ... Gun show

                  Bingo.

                  And of course its not just guns but cleaning supplies, targets, reloading supplies, knives, hunting gear, parts, etc ...

                  The problem is that many here don't understand what it takes to own a firearm.

                  In IL you need a FOID card just to be able to handle a gun, or purchase Ammo. Then the Federal background checks.. waiting periods... etc...

                  In Chicago after McDonald v. City of Chicago, you could own a handgun, however you had to go thru 16 hours of training, which had to be done outside of city limits, take the paperwork to a single police site and get electronic fingerprints. Plus pay $$ for the course and $$ for the permit that was only good for 3 years. I was about to get mine renewed when the CCW law went in to effect and Chicago dropped their permit process.

                  So yes, its not always easy being a legal gun owner. Especially in Chicago.

      2. DavCrav Silver badge

        Re: @Redpawn ... Gun show

        "Already idiots are jumping on the gun grabbing bandwagon ..."

        This would be the 'you have no need for a gun in a country not actually in civil war so why have you got so many?' bandwagon. It's not a bandwagon if they have a good point.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Redpawn ... Gun show

          It's not a bandwagon if they have a good point.

          I'm sure this was the refrain from Herr Hitler and his merry men too...

          1. Voyna i Mor Silver badge

            Re: @Redpawn ... Gun show

            You mean the Herr Hitler who had large gangs of armed followers who he used to intimidate people into voting for him till he came to power, whereupon he had the ones who threatened his position executed and the rest drafted into his various terror police forces?

            Hitler was fine with people having guns till the possibility existed they might be used against him.

        2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

          @Dave Re: @Redpawn ... Gun show

          Do you hunt?

          Didn't think so.

          Do you shoot as sport (clays or paper targets)? Didn't think so.

          Have you ever had someone try to rob you or cause you harm?

          Didn't think so.

          As to owning a gun, its my 2nd Amendment right.

          And its a bandwagon because those who wish to violate my constitutional right are idiots in the clown car.

          You don't want to own a gun or shoot guns as sport? Its your right. But firearms are tools and when you need to protect your herd or fields from crop damage or varmints... you will have a gun or actually guns. (rifle, shotgun, .22lr rifle)

          They don't have a good point. And that's something you'll never understand.

    2. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

      Re: Gun show

      The biggest problem with the Feral database is the fact it is incomplete as many do not bother to enter the names of those are to be on it regularly. There was a recent shooting in Texas were the shooter was supposed to have been banned from owning a gun but the USAF could not be bothered to fill out the paperwork to put him on the list.

      The only time there is no background check is a private sale but I would recommend that one do due diligence on the buyer (like as posted said have a gun shop run a background check). Gun dealers are always required to do at least the Feral check and must refuse the sale if the purchaser fails. States and cities may add more requirements but not less than the feral ones. Again fail the additional requirements; no sale. Also 'straw purchases', sending a person with a clean record to buy a gun for someone who cannot own one, is also a felony (Feral I believe).

      If you read the story, his attempts to buy a gun were denied by the background check. What he did was try to circumvent the check by making a gun using a 3-D printer. He was successful in making but he forgot the ban also included possession. Not being familiar with 3-D printers but knowing the parts that get you trouble are the parts that see the most stress during firing I would be concerned that those parts are not to spec. Thus the gun would work for a few firings but might be susceptible to a catastrophic failure.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
        Boffin

        @ yank lurker ... Re: Gun show

        The only time you don't do a background check in a private sale is when its to a family member.

        That said.. if you are selling to a stranger... or even a friend... you take the sale to the local gun store. Most charge $25.00 that you can add to the price of the gun.

        Only an idiot doesn't do this because of the potential liability for either criminal charges or civil wrongful death lawsuit if the gun is used in a crime.

        And to your point... the background checks did work in this instance.

        The 3D printing... you can do a lot, but you still need certain parts. Also it depends on the caliber of the weapon. Printing .22lr and using metal parts... you may be ok. Trying that with a 5.56 or larger rounds... Boom. No Bueno.

        1. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: @ yank lurker ... Gun show

          "Only an idiot doesn't do this because of the potential liability for either criminal charges or civil wrongful death lawsuit if the gun is used in a crime."

          And if they simply reply, "Somebody stole it?" Sixth Amendment kicks in, and they'll have to prove he's lying.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @ yank lurker ... Gun show

            Where's the police report? Someone steals a gun and you don't report it to the police, you're facing some serious legal issues. Claiming some time afterwards that it was stolen, without that report existing, is a pretty good indication that you're lying, which makes you an accessory.

            1. jake Silver badge

              Re: @ yank lurker ... Gun show

              "Claiming some time afterwards that it was stolen, without that report existing, is a pretty good indication that you're lying, which makes you an accessory."

              I have a gun safe on this property that I hasn't been opened in probably two years. I'm pretty certain that my Great Grandfather's long guns and a couple handguns and collectable military weapons of the same era are still in it ... but I suppose there is a (vanishingly) small chance that someone has opened it and stolen the lot.

          2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: @ yank lurker ... Gun show

            Somebody stole it?

            LOL... Did you file a police report and report the serial numbers?

            Most do. However that doesn't stop the civil lawsuits.

            Why wasn't your gun in a locked gun safe? ;-)

            Again, sure you can lie but remember a civil lawsuit is much different from a criminal case.

            1. Charles 9 Silver badge

              Re: @ yank lurker ... Gun show

              How? He stole it JUST BEFORE the crime, meaning I found out about the stolen guns AFTER the fact. And since the crook wore gloves and so on, no traces. If it was a handgun, it need not be in a safe since handguns needs to be "at hand" in case of a surprise intrusion. If there was gun safe, I could break into my own safe and say throw out the tools used to do it.

              Plausible deniability. Sixth Amendment again. PROVE I'm lying.

              1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

                Re: @ yank lurker ... Gun show

                Again, doesn't matter.

                You do know what a wrongful death civil lawsuit is, right?

                And tell that to a jury... no evidence that it was stolen, just my word. Prove I'm not lying...

                Its a good way to end up in jail.

                1. Charles 9 Silver badge

                  Re: @ yank lurker ... Gun show

                  Civil suits DON'T result in jail time. Only CRIMINAL cases do that, and that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which plausible deniability directly counters. Also, civil cases still need to show a preponderance of evidence showing my liability for a judgment to be ruled against me that won't be overturned on appeal. By demonstrating I took suitable precautions and it STILL failed, I can make that very hard even in a civil case.

        2. jake Silver badge

          Re: @ yank lurker ... Gun show

          "Also it depends on the caliber of the weapon."

          No dammit, Gumby! It depends on the cartridge. The .220 Swift barrels are the same caliber as the .22lr barrels for my T/C Contenders.

          1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

            @Jake Re: @ yank lurker ... Gun show

            Damnit Pokey!

            You know what I meant.

            a .22lr is the same caliber bullet as a .220 Swift, or .223 NATO. Or a 22WM but if I said caliber/cartridge, do you think people would have gotten the difference.

            Like a 7.62x39 vs a 7.62x51 or 7.62x55 All the same caliber but the bullet size/weight vary as well as the charge behind it.

            1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

              Re: @Jake @ yank lurker ... Gun show

              so is it possible a long thin bullet might be more powerful than a short fat one , but sound less so because of the smaller calibre?

              1. LDS Silver badge

                Re: @Jake @ yank lurker ... Gun show

                Yes. What matters is the bullet weight and its speed (which is the kinetic energy). Longer thinner bullets propelled by more powerful charges may also be more aerodynamic and lose less speed while traveling.

                Some bullet may also break, and anyway the shock-wave and bones fragments also damage tissues around.

                That's why assault rifles using such kind of ammunition are so deadly, and their wounds more devastating.

                1. Eddy Ito Silver badge

                  Re: @Jake @ yank lurker ... Gun show

                  That's why assault rifles using such kind of ammunition are so deadly, and their wounds more devastating.

                  Your buying into a myth, so called 'assault rifle' ammunition is arguably less deadly than standard hunting ammunition. The AR typically fires a 55-63 grain full metal jacket bullet at between 850 and 950 meters per second for about 1,800 J and the AK fires a 120-125 grain full metal jacket bullet at about 735 meters per second for 2,100 J. Being full metal jacket bullets they don't expand but may tumble to increase the wound channel.

                  Meanwhile typical hunting ammo like 270 Winchester will throw a 130-150 grain expanding bullet to 850-950 feet per second for about 4,000 J. Notice this round has twice the energy and because the projectile is far superior aerodynamically it will retain that energy to much greater distances.

                  Finally, I'd like to know the "standard" wound against which "more devastating" is compared. Is it perhaps a two inch ice pick? I find it highly unlikely the standard is a 100 grain hollow point stepping out of a 270 Win. at well over 1,000 meters per second.

                  1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
                    Boffin

                    @Eddy Re: @Jake @ yank lurker ... Gun show

                    Now you're getting in to ballistics.

                    A 5.56N will tumble on impact not to mention cavitation causing damage. At issue is how much energy is transferred to the target.

                    W.R.T your hunting round... the expansion will also depend on the distance to the target and the amount of energy. Its very possible at shorter distances that you don't have expansion. Again it depends on the design of the hunting round.

                    I agree that many do not understand the terminal effect of different ballistics.

                    A smaller 6.5 bullet used in a 6.5CM compared to the 7.62x51 will have more down range energy, closer to that of a .300WM. ;-)

        3. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

          Re: @ yank lurker ... Gun show

          @Ian- I am a little vague on private sales but I do know buying from a dealer requires at a minimum the federal check and any state or local requirements. I do understand the risk of selling a gun to another person without running a background check and agree having a dealer run a check is wise. Also, I am aware the 'the gun show exception' is largely a myth.

          My concern about 3-D printing of key components is they are likely not to have the proper heat treatment if they are the correct alloy and may not be the correct alloy. I would suspect in either case the part would be weaker than it should be. So repeated firing would a roll of the dice, better odds with a 22 than 30-06, just how many firings is the question. I am assuming someone would not so stupid as to not use metal for these parts.

          1. Eddy Ito Silver badge

            Re: @ yank lurker ... Gun show

            Chances are that if one can afford a 3D metal printer at the present time they also have access to getting it properly heat treated. IIRC, the 1911 Ian mentioned was printed in stainless steel although I don't recall the specific alloy. Yes, there have been mostly all plastic guns made and exploded as you might expect but every one that I've seen the gun was clamped not held in the hand for test firing.

            There were a few guys on youtube some time back making slam-fire shotguns from about $20 worth of pipe and other bits from the local hardware store. I seem to recall one went so far as to make a multi-barrel slam-fire seemingly to prove he could.

          2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: @ yank lurker ... Gun show

            3D printing?

            These aren't metal printers. These are the plastic parts you can print. Most of the gun doesn't have to be that strong. Nor do you need to show a FOID card or anything to get them mail ordered.

            I mean I could buy the following parts for a Ruger 10/22 without any background check:

            Stock

            replacement barrel

            firing pin

            V Block

            Bolt handle

            Trigger group

            Scope / Scope mount (or iron sights)

            Extractor

            Springs

            The only thing that I cannot buy via the mail and which does trigger a background check is the actual receiver.

            The whole 3D printing thing as being used to create untraceable guns is more of a myth than reality.

            To your point. Yes... the issue is how long it will last and how safe... very valid and true.

            What most of these people don't realize is that you can legally buy a blank that is 80% finished and there are kits that help you to finish making your own gun. These kits are 100% legal, and there is no serial number. The catch is that you can't transfer or sell it.

  7. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Because

      No, the right to bear arms meant the right to bear arms. When it was written isn't important: the assumption was that people would be purchasing the most up to date weaponry available to them, and the government was specifically prevented from interfering with that right.

      Nowhere in the bill of rights is there a list of weapons or weapon types that may or may not be purchased.

      Remember, this was a time when it was entirely possible to privately build, arm, crew and operate a ship of the line, and in fact private warships were still in operation. Their ownership was protected by the 2nd amendment just as much as any other form of arms. The ownership and operation of a private warship is still possible today under the 2nd amendment, it's just prohibitively expensive.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Because

        Yeah, but those with the power treat the Constitution like toilet paper.

        As a European, I find it bizarre that with all the indoctrination and brainwashing US citizens experience in their formative years (allegiance to the flag, uphold the Constitution etc), that people accept the "interpretations" the current authorities put on things like right to bear arms, unwarranted searches, excessive fines, plea bargains rather than justice etc etc.

        Your country is run by criminal lawyers who have no respect for the law.

      2. Alan Mackenzie
        WTF?

        Re: Because

        So, in the USA, there's a right to own nuclear bombs, is there? Surely that is covered by the right to bear arms too.

        1. bpfh Bronze badge

          Re: Because

          Theoretically yes, if you get approval from the BATFE for a destructive device and some paperwork from the DOE. Remember that local statute also applies and I believe there may still be a 500 dollar fine in a Phoenix AZ for letting off a nuke within city limits.

          1. -tim
            Mushroom

            Re: Because

            A private company has twice. AT&T's Bell Labs was playing with x-ray lasers and needed a source of X-rays so they called up their friends at the DOE and arranged for some boom boom time.

          2. Graham Butler

            Re: Because

            Would anyone notice? Place is a furnace already.

            1. J. Cook Silver badge

              Re: Because

              There's a handful of data centers in Arizona, strangely enough. But then, there's also a significant amount of manufacturing for the military, and the military itself has training areas.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Because

          Is that the best you can do?!?

        3. jake Silver badge

          Re: Because

          "in the USA, there's a right to own nuclear bombs, is there?"

          Don't be stupid. The NRC regulates the fissile material required.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Because

          Bombers, tanks, cannons, mortars, bombs, whatever, it looks... but I can't see the "Militia" - the forgotten part of the Second Amendment. Switzerland has mandatory training...

          By the way, it was written in a time when many politicians didn't want a standing Army (nor a Navy, which was eliminateduntil it was found it was needed, at least to protect commerce) - because of the fear a Trump could size power, declare a national emergency, and use the professional Army against the citizens (as it happened in Europe back then) - which would then be unable to defend even possessing guns.

          Soon enough they understood a "well organized Militia" armed with a variety of personal guns would have had no chance against a professional enemy Army armed with standardized guns and ammunition, plus cannons and whatever only a state is able to provide to it, and the required training as well.

          I think the Napoleonic wars in the years following the writing of the Constitution greatly changed minds about military power and battlefield needs.

          1. Charles 9 Silver badge

            Re: Because

            "Soon enough they understood a "well organized Militia" armed with a variety of personal guns would have had no chance against a professional enemy Army armed with standardized guns and ammunition, plus cannons and whatever only a state is able to provide to it, and the required training as well."

            Then explain the Continental Army versus the British. Two other things. First, a militia (at the time and even now) has no formal definition. An "army of one" can still be a militia. Second, the exact words were "well regulated," which can easily mean "well equipped". Unless you can cite the OED circa 1790 to prove otherwise.

        5. Charles 9 Silver badge

          Re: Because

          Theoretically, yes. About the only thing preventing is lack of access, as they're coveted by state-level actors as trump cards. That includes source materials such as yellowcake mines.

        6. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Because

          Or arm Bears, a Grizzily with an auto-shot gun would be nice

      3. MGJ

        Re: Because

        Are you trolling? The US constitution is very clear that the purpose of the right to bear arms is associated with being part of a militia.

        "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."

        Its as relevant to modern day society as the local laws about having to take part in archery practice in certain parts of the UK. I put away my toy guns at age 8 and grew up. Would be good if you lot did too.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Because

          I know it is terrible that people have stopped keeping up with their archery practice!

        2. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

          Re: Because

          You should read up on case law with regards to the Second Amendment.

          The comma after the term "A well regulated militia" is a HIGHLY DEFINITIVE because it is SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED by the second statement "being necessary to the security of a free state".

          In the age of the 1790's when the 2nd Amendment was added, a Well Regulated Militia specifically means WELL TRAINED and well commandeered. ANYONE can join a militia (and is STILL ALLOWED!) and it requires only weekly drills and some meetings to be considered "Well Regulated".

          The SECOND COMMA is also highly important to the legal definition in that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." SPECIFICALLY REFERS to ALL PEOPLE of the United States and not just those within militias. "The People" has been legally defined to mean ALL persons lawfully residing within and/or actual legal citizens of the United States SHALL NOT have their own personal right to bear arms infringed.

          If you are PART and PARCEL of the People of the United State of America, a Citizen or merely a legally resident alien, you HAVE THE RIGHT to bear arms PERIOD!

          You DON"T have to grow and put your "toys" away...because THOSE 'toys" are what KEEP a state free from tyranny! And in America, it be ONLY FROM OUR COLD DEAD HANDS WILL THEY EVER be taking away our guns!

          .

          .

          1. Fluffy Cactus

            Re: Because

            Well, you can read it your way, and you can read it my way.

            There are some things to consider: "The way people wrote and spoke in 1776", and the "situation the US was in as a country in 1776".

            The 2nd amendment first states "the reason why", i.e. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", for doing something, and it then states "the thing to be done or not done", which is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

            To me, "a well regulated militia" means "not necessarily a loosely organized group of guys doing shooting practice in the woods and calling themselves a militia, because 'hey, we had a meeting or two'."

            No, "a well regulated militia" means, in 1776, what is meant TODAY by a "legally authorized police force, a police department, or a County Sheriff's department" or a "legally authorized military force" (i.e. Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, etc.) In 1776, the US had trouble to maintain a standing army, because it costs money. The UK was the rich Top Dog, in the world, in 1776.

            Likewise, the USA of 1776 was for several decades in a state of war or rebellion with the United Kingdom of England. Back then, the US had good reason to believe that the UK would strike back and re-conquer those darn rebel Americans at any moment (as proven by the raid in 1812 by the Brits, that burned down the White House, 36 years after 1776).

            For that reason the ability to pull together forces that "already had arms" was an important factor in writing the 2nd amendment the way it was written. This was the easiest cheapest method they had back then to raise an army. But things are different today. We got Police, we got Sheriffs, the National Guard, we got the US Armed Forces.

            Your own so-called "well-regulated militias" are no longer being called up to serve. Can you see that? I can.

            I know that fact will make you sad, because anyone wants to be part of some "history-changing" movement, and everyone wants to believe that what they are doing is the absolute right thing. I get that. I know you won't like my reasoning, because you are a true believer in the "mindset" of 2nd amendment fans.

            You think that your guns ("those toys") are what keep a state free of tyranny? Well, let me see. From your mindset, it seems likely that you think that "Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama" were trying to set up a tyrannical state. So, what would happen if you used your guns to "end the tyranny"? You'd get the death penalty or life in prison, depending on the state you live in! And for some folks on the left, "Reagan, Bush, Bush 2 and Trump" were the ones who were trying to set up a state of tyranny. If they used guns to "end the tyranny", they'd get the same death or life in prison sentence. So it is not altogether THAT easy to "keep a state, a country free from tyranny" just by owning guns, don't you think?

            Todays tyrannical leaders get "elected", somehow, by "pushing the right (or wrong) buttons of the electorate. (Maybe I should not mention that Hitler was initially elected into power, because it's always wrong to mention him. It's like mentioning underwear in church.)

            Like Detective Columbo, there is one more thing

            "Let's discuss what the 2nd amendment DOES NOT SAY":

            It DOES NOT say "A slightly unwell de-regulated marauding militia, being necessary to the paranoia of a weird state, the right of crazy mass-murderers to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

            Say what you will, but I am 100% certain that it never said that. It just didn't! No, no, no! Seven times no!

            So, WHY didn't it say that? Because, WHATEVER the actual 2nd amendment means, it could not have meant that "crazy people shall be allowed and encouraged to have guns to kill others, especially innocent kids, like a freakin' monster from hell".

            And WHY could it not have meant that?

            Because laws must be interpreted for the most reasonable, most beneficial, most likely INTENT!

            Because LAW WITHOUT REASON IS FOR NAUGHT!

            LAW WITHOUT REASON IS WORTH NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH, DE NADA!

            Whenever laws have unintended side-effects, any reasonable and lawful governing body is under an obligation to change the laws in such a way that the "unintended effect" goes away. Of course, I am idealist when I say that, since wherever I look, laws are being made by short-sided, and possibly corrupt lawmakers who somehow never get the time, the money or the votes to fix the laws they have made. (Similar to software companies, or the pharmaceutical industry, etc....)

            Thus, because of all of the above, you are not convincing me that your ideas are right. They may sound great, strong, manly and patriotic, but once you think about them, they are not all that smart. And that's why I think that crazy people should not have guns. I hope I made myself clear.

            As long as you are not insane, you can keep your guns, but please lock them up. As soon as you turn insane, please turn yourself in!

            You can see why I am not a politician or a lawyer. Too effing honest. "Vote Fritz, because at least he is honest", or "Vote Fritzie, because he means well" are not the best campaign slogans for myself, but that's all I got in the short run.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Because

              Bullshit. Read the federalist papers. The 2nd Amendment is protection FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

              "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to

              time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas

              Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

              That letter isn't from the revolution. It's during the drafting of the constitution. He's not referring to Great Britain. He is talking about the government that is being created.

              The founding fathers intended that gun ownership NEVER be infringed by the Federal Government. That's why it is in the Bill of Rights. All 10 amendments deal directly with YOUR rights and prohibiting the Federal Government from messing with them.

              Article 9 makes that abundantly clear. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

              Repeat this to yourself until you get it: "All 10 of the Bill of Rights inform the Federal Government that it may not do SOMETHING or MANY THINGS. Not a single power is GIVEN to the Feds in the articles. Every bit of text is a prohibition on the government."

              But, assuming you believe nothing I have written. We'll take it from the guy that wrote the 2nd in the first place;

              "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best

              and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment

              during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

        3. This post has been deleted by its author

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Because

          It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". It doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms". It doesn't say "the right of the military to keep and bear arms". It says "the right of the people". The militia section is there because the militia was made from volunteers bringing their own weapons.

      4. Toni the terrible
        Coat

        Re: Because

        Wasn't there some wrt being part of a well regulated militia?

    2. Rupert Fiennes Bronze badge

      Re: Because

      There are more than twenty times as many murders committed with handguns than there are with rifles (any sort, "assault" or otherwise). You cannot declare that assault weapons are the problem: they aren't.

    3. Carpet Deal 'em

      Re: Because

      The AR-15 isn't an assault rifle(the 'A' stands for 'Armalite', the company that originally designed it).

      However right now there's a case over a man who was hit with felony charges over owning an unregistered suppressor(allowed by state law, but in violation of federal regulations) that's chosen to go after the National Firearms Act itself, so any question over the possession of actual assault rifles could be settled in the near future if SCOTUS takes it up.

  8. elgarak1

    There appear to be quite a few details missing from the reporting. Let's just say there a lots of lucky coincidences and weird details present that should raise questions for competent reporters.

    I'm not saying the police and prosecution have done something illegal, but they are quite lucky to have this case involving 3D printing.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      There appear to be quite a few details missing from the reporting.

      A little bit more in the official notice:

      https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndtx/pr/man-carrying-prohibited-3d-printed-gun-found-list-lawmakers-addresses

      Things I take away, this was mostly a factory or workshop made AR15, with a few ancillary bits 3D printed. Doing a bit of desk research, the AR15 seems to have a reputation as an exceptionally noisy device anyway, and this clown had assembled his weapon with a 10 inch barrel. I'd imagine that makes a truly exceptional bang, even compared to other high power rifles. So I'm unsurprised that the officers answering another other call chose to investigate the sound of a heavy weapon being discharged.

      That doesn't preclude other conspiracy theories, but even so, it seems plausible.

      1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
        Boffin

        @Ledswinger

        First a 10" barrel is an SBR. (That requires a tax stamp)

        Second the 5.56NATO is not a high powered rifle.

        Now if you look at a 6.5CM or any rifle that requires a long chamber ... you have a high power rifle.

        1. Is It Me

          Re: @Ledswinger

          Is there a definition of high power?

          If so I would have thought it was probably related to muzzle energy rather than chamber size.

          Obviously ME will vary in the same rifle depending on the powder load and projectile weight.

          I wouldn't have thought 6.5 Creedmoor is high power just from the very low recoil (even without a moderator/suppressor or muzzle break)

  9. Stratman

    Rather than limit access, give everyone in the LoTF a hundred guns free of charge. Give every newborn a hundred too. It may take a few generations but eventually only the smart will be walking around. Who knows, things may get to the point where the populace are begging for gun control while the NRA's raison d'être has disappeared.

    The USA deserves guns. The more and bigger the better.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Are you really still bent out of shape because you lost a war hundreds of years ago to a nation of outlaws, rejects, and noname soldiers?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        They "lost" because France intervened and told them to knock it off. You remember France, that held about half of what would become the US at the time?

        1. baud

          I think that France, at the time of the American war of independence, had already lost most (all?) its territories in North America in the previous war.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "You remember France, that held about half of what would become the US at the time?"

          More dangerously, UK couldn't send too many troops to America and leave UK unguarded - look at what happened a few years later when Napoleon decided it was time to build an empire. Sure, some colonies were important, but France was a far bigger menace - since Normans invaded England in 1066.

          1. macjules Silver badge

            Re: "You remember France, that held about half of what would become the US at the time?"

            Slightly strange interpretation of our history. Following the 7 years war Britain demobilised a large amount of its army, favouring a defence based around the Royal Navy instead. When the troubles began in the American colonies the first reaction was to require the various houses, in what was to become Germany, to supply their indentured troops to fight for the Hanoverian King George. Thus you ended up with some 50,000 troops from Hesse-Kassel, Brunswick, Hannover, Hesse-Hanau and so on - all commonly referred to as "Hessians". Many of those troops chose to remain in the Americas after the revolution.

    2. jake Silver badge

      Ah, yes.

      Reductio ad absurdum. The last resort of an argument without a leg to stand on.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: Ah, yes.

        So you're saying Alan Turing was crazy? Because his Halting Problem disproof relies on a reductio ad absurdum. It's a form of Proof by Contradiction.

  10. CAPS LOCK Silver badge

    There's a lot more heat than light in this thread, mostly from gun owners of the USA of America...

    ... banging on about their Constitutional rights and 'The Right to Bear Arms'.

    Firstly, lets just see what the Second Amendment actually says shall we?

    "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."

    Can anyone see the problem here? As I understand it, the American state runs a military so large it can fight two wars at once. This means a MiIitia isn't needed and so there's no need for the Second Amendment.

    None of that means that anything sensible can be done until such time as the Second Amendment is repealed. Don't hold your breath.

    Secondly, let's look all this 'murders are done with guns bought on the black market' nonsense. Apart from a few home made guns ALL guns started life as legitimately held, from where they leaked into the illegal market in robberies and so on. If the pool of legal weapons disappeared the illegal weapons would eventually disappear.

    1. Simon B-52

      The second amendment

      There is another reading of this that gives a rather different meaning, namely that "Militia" and "The People" are two separate things.

      The Militia protects the State against foreign powers, but may offer temptation to a despot, so the people shall be allowed to bear arms as a counter to that danger.

      This seems the more credible and likely interpretation to me. Then as now, the majority of people would be little use in a militia, but that does not mean they have no good use for a gun.

      In any case, as the sad state of affairs in London shows, guns are quite unnecessary to a high murder rate.

      Humans are mostly very vulnerable meat sacks, and those seeking a less bloody society would do well to address the culture that allows the depiction of homicde as mainstream "entertainment", but not of sex, the process by which most of us start our lives.

      But then a well adjusted populace, free of large scale psycopathy might be more difficult to govern and exploit.

      1. LenG

        Re: The second amendment

        That is the most peculiar interpretation of the second amendment I have ever come across.

        A militia is "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency". To think that the amendment was passed to give non-militia civilians the ability to fight the militia is completely perverse. At the time of passing able bodied men could be expected to turn out for militia duty if required and bring their own guns. Whether this is appropriate in a modern society is a valid question.

        As for murder in London, it has risen recently and NY has made good progress in reducing the rate there, but it is still 2-3 times that of London.

    2. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: There's a lot more heat than light in this thread...

      WoW.

      I suggest you read the Federalist Papers and then the writings of Anthony Scalia on the topic.

      Also if you want to play Grammar Nazi, learn to read 18th century English.

      As others have already pointed out what was meant by a militia meaning any male of militia age.

      There's more, but I doubt you have the intellect to comprehend it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "the writings of Anthony Scalia"

        He's part of the problem. Thinking that a Constitution must not adapt to changing times is pure folly. It's bringing some "religious thinking" into it - as if it was written by "holy entities" who hold the real transcendent universal truth , and not by men who acted with their best intentions sure - but still men of their own time - and thereby limited by it to understand each and every implication for the centuries to come.

        Whatever was written in 1789 was written in an environment that no longer exists. And thinking you can guess what they really thought 250 years later is pure folly as well. Unless you can build a time machine, and ask them directly (if they can understand you), you have no way. What they wrote is still interpreted by someone educated in a different environment - with 250 years of history more in their heads.

        Moreover Constitution is not a Bible/Quran/<your holy book here> - reading that as such will lead you just down the rabbit hole every religion went - thinking about "immutability" when the world actually changes, and changes are needed in Constitutions as well, Moreover, no matter how clever those men could have been, they could have made mistakes too - or simply, what looked right back then doesn't hold today.

        That's why also, unlike "holy" books, Constitutions are written with provisions to be changed when needed. And yes, other mistakes could be made (like the Prohibitionist amendment...) but you can make mistakes even doing nothing.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: There's a lot more heat than light in this thread, mostly from gun owners of the USA of America

      I think a well trained militia is a great idea, no need for a large standing army, allow any adult to sign up to the militia, train them but only allow people who have completed the training to purchase and use firearms.

      I would quite happily join a militia and attend regular training sessions if it allowed me the ability to own firearms for recreational purposes as well.

    4. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

      Re: There's a lot more heat than light in this thread, mostly from gun owners of the USA.

      Actually NO! If legals guns were to disappear, ILLEGAL guns would NOT disappear!

      Using modern technology available to ANYONE, I could take our 3D metal printers (Titanium powder) and build ourselves some long barreled rifles surrounded by linear induction coils attached to nano-second drain super-capacitors which will make my a very nice and portable "Rail Gun" which can accelerate a simple steel dart (covered in thin ceramic) within 36 inches to over 5000+ MPH (8000 KMH) where the kinetic energy of that steel dart would WAAAAY outclass ANY modern rifle!

      Sooooo....is it STILL a firearm? There's NO explosive parts at all! Just some magnetic coils, capacitors and multiple 375 watt pro-level video camera batteries to charge the fast-discharge capacitors which create a linear induction system for the projectile. I can do the math later, but multiple 375 watt video camera batteries is enough to discharge at least 10 shots at 35 watts each of energy transfer within a few milliseconds which SHOULD get me to at least 2000 MPH (3000 KPH) projectile velocities.

      So again, is a 3D printed rail-gun a fire arm?

      .

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: There's a lot more heat than light in this thread, mostly from gun owners of the USA.

        When Goa'uld will invade Earth we'll asks for your magic gun. Meanwhile, take your pills...

      2. Cuddles Silver badge

        Re: There's a lot more heat than light in this thread, mostly from gun owners of the USA.

        "I can do the math later, but multiple 375 watt video camera batteries is enough to discharge at least 10 shots at 35 watts each of energy transfer within a few milliseconds which SHOULD get me to at least 2000 MPH (3000 KPH) projectile velocities."

        Arguing about politics and gun control seems to be a fairly fruitless exercise, so it's nice to be able to address a post that relies solely on fact. Watts are not a unit of energy, they are a unit of power. 35W for a few milliseconds will give you about 0.1J of energy transferred to your projectile. That's enough to accelerate an adult fruit fly to 40mph. While slightly faster than they normally fly, shooting someone with your railgun would be able equivalent to the impact when swatting said fly.

        It would of course still be possible to get 2000mph projectile velocities, but you'd need something with a mass on the order of 0.3 ug. You could manage that with something like a small snowflake, for example.

        1. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

          Re: There's a lot more heat than light in this thread, mostly from gun owners of the USA.

          A Cruel Irony that technically you are very correct, but I did say MULTIPLE 375 watt batteries and steel darts covered in ceramic are actually quite light. The ceramic is for atmospheric heating issues (i.e. on the large diameter "Rods for Gods" that we usually work with), but the magnetically driveable steel dart cores can easily weigh only a few grams if we make them small enough.

          And we actually ARE transferring almost the ENTIRE 35 watts (minus typical losses) in that mere milliseconds, so technically if we extroplated 10 milliseconds of 35 Watts into Joules Per Second it would be on the order of around 3500 Joules per second.

          I understand where you are coming from, but that ENTIRE 35 watts is being transferred from the capacitor in much less than 10 milliseconds so the specific IMPULSE is enough to accelerate the rather light dart to 2000 mph (3000 kmh). If you do the math which I know you can do, the actual energy required to move ten grams to 3000 KPH is only 41 Watts/sec. Steel darts CAN be as light as 10 grams which will STILL make a very nice hole in a person. This is why I did say MULTIPLE 375 watt pro-level video camera batteries and if I designed it, the coils would be made to take into the hundred of watts per second so I can move 200+ gram darts.

          Higher wattages at fast impulse tends to blow out the induction coils which need cooling which isn't all that portable, which is WHY we use very large tanks of liquid helium in the bigger rail guns. For a portable system a coil-cooling setup similar to modern GPU graphics card vapour chamber cooling and tubing IS SUFFICIENT and still portable for our needs.

          The biggest issue so far is getting a capacitor that can actually DRAIN in 10 milliseconds across a switching buss that connects and charges all coils in sequence in microsecond impulses so there is a pulsed linear induction rail formed for propulsion purposes. Those types of capacitors need sub-10 millisecond draining at high current AND still recharge in a few tens of milliseconds for a higher firing rate. That type of high current drain/charge cycling BREAKS all normal capacitors so you need to goto ceramic layering and custom high-surface area plates which use nano-tubes to allow HUGE amounts of charge accumulation in a small volume. That type of capacitor is VERY expensive BUT they are available!

          .

          .

          1. Fluffy Cactus

            Re: There's a lot more heat than light in this thread, mostly from gun owners of the USA.

            Anything going fast enough is trouble to whatever is just standing there.

            These guys from "Mythbusters" sort of proved that by shooting a two-by-four inch piece of wood through

            a brickwall, and , if I am not mistaken, they also shot a head of lettuce through something that was not strong enough to resist a head of lettuce going 1000 miles per hour, or something...

            1. Charles 9 Silver badge

              Re: There's a lot more heat than light in this thread, mostly from gun owners of the USA.

              I thought it was a frozen chicken, using an air cannon. Pretty much went through everything they put in front of it.

        2. StargateSg7 Bronze badge

          Re: There's a lot more heat than light in this thread, mostly from gun owners of the USA.

          And as an aside to my reply to you...INDEED you are correct that power and energy are NOT the same thing. 3500 Joules is quit a lot of total energy and it WILL move 10 grams of mass at quite a velocity specifically if it is transferred on an impulse basis within mere milliseconds. Ergo we use multiple 375 watt video batteries.

          I never really "properly got" the term Joules during my collegiate educational period, so for my "Practical Application Level", I happen to personally convert/like Watts/Second units because I can EASILY translate that format to computer source code and spreadsheet formulas for modelling. For some reason Joules is just a useless term for me while Watts/Second has some real meaning to me in terms of hand-on practical application. 1 J = 1 w/s so I know that but I happen to think different because I need a unit of time specified for certain applications such as linear induction power supplies. It;'s just easier thinking-wise to specify watts/sec.

          .

          .

          .

          1. The First Dave

            Re: There's a lot more heat than light in this thread, mostly from gun owners of the USA.

            The time taken to transfer energy has nothing to do with the final velocity.

            1. Charles 9 Silver badge

              Re: There's a lot more heat than light in this thread, mostly from gun owners of the USA.

              Even if it applies to acceleration, which IS a measurement of change of velocity over time?

  11. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

    Exceptionally good at self incrimination.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    predatory bans

    The thing you don't hear about is how these 'protective orders' are being issued. They're being used as means of retaliation and revenge. Your neighbor pissed you off by mowing his lawn too early in the morning? Call the cops and make a claim you're afraid they might hurt someone **or** themselves. The cops and courts will issue an order against them without even bothering to investigate or check facts. It's an entirely hostile environment.

    1. I3N
      Angel

      Re: predatory bans

      Been there, subjected to that ... wait do you want my bb-guns that shoot rubber bands, too ...

      Been in court before with excellent representation and took notes ...

      so came down to well Ms. has there been any time during the last two proceeds that you haven't been lying? You can change your testimony now. Ans. No ...

      Your honor the dvd,

      JP: "Oh do we really have to?"

      Well it is your choice your honor ...

  13. Big Al 23

    One down thousands to go

    A background check would not have shown or deterred him from 3D printing a gun. Thank the morons who posted plans online how to 3D print guns for unnecessary deaths. Any gangbanger, terrorists or evil person can get a Russian or Ukraine produced weapon in the U.S. and elsewhere with little trouble. If the U.S. and other countries want to reduce gun violence they need to remove the crazy people from society because you certainly can't remove the endless supply of illegal guns from foreign countries nor stop crazy people from 3D printing guns or gang members from making zip guns.

    1. VikiAi Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: One down thousands to go

      They almost succeeded in removing all the crazy people from the world once! But 20-80 thousand survived and we are up to 8 billion now!

  14. mylittlepwny

    I hope this is more about him acquiring a weapon when he was still under court order to not own one. What if he had machined and manufactured his own AR-15 the traditional way, buying only raw materials?

    1. jake Silver badge

      RTFA

      First paragraph reads "A Texas fella banned from owning firearms is now behind bars for trying to 3D print a gun for himself."

      HTH, HAND

    2. Baldrickk Silver badge

      If he had machined and manufactured his own AR-15 the traditional way, buying only raw materials, as soon as he had done so, and put it together, he'd be in possession of a fire-arm, at which point, being the idiot he is, he would have taken it out and shot it as he did with the 3D printed one, getting him caught.

      Though the effort required to machine the parts may have slowed him down. It might have taken an extra couple of weeks, so maybe we should be happy that he 3D printed the parts, so that he could be caught with a weapon while still under court order. One less gun toting guy on the street with a history of violence.

    3. Graham Butler

      If he'd have machined the remaining parts, this wouldn't be a headline. At least, not outside of the court record.

      It's the 3D printing part that's "sexy" and attention grabbing.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not allowed to

    Figure out how to build a magnetic pulse rifle, "Demolition Man" style.

    Also could double as a portable rail gun, although can't imagine why you would want one.

    Disclaimer: 1/40 the yield of the "Davy Crockett", still enough to ruin someone's day.

    On the flip side, that tiny reactor would make quite a nice backup power source for other stuff.

    Also possible to make it work using off the shelf isotopes which you *can* buy at the shop and

    it does need some exotic materials but nothing remotely dangerous due to the failsafe design

    and tendency of the thing to just fuse into a solid lump if something goes kaka.

    Bad guys. "You bought a NUKE to a gun fight?!" (clicky hummmMMMM) "And your point is.."

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So, what should it be America?

    More guns?

    Fewer guns?

    It doesn't take Einstein to work out which option is the safest.

    1. imanidiot Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: So, what should it be America?

      ALL the guns!

    2. troyfletcher

      Re: So, what should it be America?

      The 20th century saw over a quarter of a BILLION people murdered by their governments worldwide.

      You don't need to ask anyone, the proof is in the pudding.

      https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

  17. Big_Boomer

    The USA loves it's guns

    Get over it. They are not going to give up their guns. The press here keep reporting on the massacres that seem to occur every other day over there as if they are something new, when they are not. The USA seems to accept those massacres as the price of universal gun ownership, so we should leave them to it and stop reporting it here.

    1. VikiAi Silver badge

      Re: The USA loves it's guns

      It isn't really that different to accepting the road toll as the price of letting just about any idiot drive a car.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The USA loves it's guns

      "The press here keep reporting on the massacres that seem to occur every other day over there"

      I was in California last week and local radio news reporting the Michigan shooting said that it was the 29th "mass shooting" (I suspect this means shooting with more than 1 fatality) this year ... so its slightly higher than "every other day".

  18. Luiz Abdala

    Dukes of Hazzard.

    Try bow and arrows next time. No checks on that.

  19. Fluffy Cactus

    There are some things to consider: "The way people wrote and spoke in 1776", and the "situation the US was in as a country in 1776".

    The 2nd amendment first states "the reason why", i.e. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", for doing something, and it then states "the thing to be done or not done", which is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    To me, "a well regulated militia" means "not necessarily a loosely organized group of guys doing shooting practice in the woods and calling themselves a militia, because 'hey, we had a meeting or two'."

    No, "a well regulated militia" means, in 1776, what is meant TODAY by a "legally authorized police force, a police department, or a County Sheriff's department" or a "legally authorized military force" (i.e. Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, etc.) In 1776, the US had trouble to maintain a standing army, because it costs money. The UK was the rich Top Dog of the world, in 1776.

    Likewise, the USA of 1776 was for several decades in a state of war or rebellion with the United Kingdom of England. Back then, the US had good reason to believe that the UK would strike back and re-conquer those darn rebel Americans at any moment (as proven by the raid in 1812 by the Brits, that burned down the White House, 36 years after 1776).

    For that reason the ability to pull together forces that "already had arms" was an important factor in writing the 2nd amendment the way it was written. This was the easiest cheapest method they had back then to raise an army. But things are different today. We got Police, we got Sheriffs, the National Guard, we got the US Armed Forces.

    Your own so-called "well-regulated militias" are no longer being called up to serve, as such. Can you see that? I can.

    I know that fact will make you sad, because anyone wants to be part of some "history-changing" movement, and everyone wants to believe that what they are doing is the absolute right thing. I get that. I know you won't like my reasoning, because you are a true believer in the "mindset" of 2nd amendment fans.

    You think that your guns ("those toys") are what keep a state free of tyranny? Well, let me see. From your mindset, it seems likely that you think that "Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama" were trying to set up a tyrannical state. So, what would happen if you used your guns to "end the tyranny"? You'd get the death penalty or life in prison, depending on the state you live in! And for some folks on the left, "Reagan, Bush, Bush 2 and Trump" were the ones who

    were trying to set up a state of tyranny. If they used guns to "end the tyranny", they'd get the same death or life in prison sentence. So it is not altogether THAT easy to "keep a state, a country free from tyranny" just by owning guns, don't you think?

    Todays tyrannical leaders get "elected", somehow, by "pushing the right (or wrong) buttons of the electorate. (Maybe I should not mention that Hitler was initially elected into power, because it's always wrong to mention him. oops. It's like mentioning underwear in church.)

    Like Detective Columbo, there is one more thing

    "Let's look at what the 2nd amendment DOES NOT SAY":

    It DOES NOT say "A slightly unwell de-regulated marauding militia, being necessary to the paranoia of a weird state, the right of crazy mass-murderers to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

    Say what you will, but I am 100% certain that it never said that. It just didn't! No, no, no! Seven times no!

    So, WHY didn't it say that? Because, WHATEVER the actual 2nd amendment means, it could not have meant that "crazy people shall be allowed and encouraged to have guns to kill others, especially innocent kids, like a freakin' monster from hell".

    And WHY could it not have meant that?

    Because laws must be interpreted for the most reasonable, most beneficial, most likely INTENT!

    Because LAW WITHOUT REASON IS FOR NAUGHT!

    LAW WITHOUT REASON IS WORTH NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH, DE NADA! Alright, I stop yelling.

    Whenever laws have unintended side-effects, any reasonable and lawful governing body is under an obligation to change the laws in such a way that the "unintended effect" goes away. Of course, I am idealist when I say that, since wherever I look, laws are being made by short-sided, and possibly corrupt lawmakers who somehow never get the time, the money or the votes to fix the laws they have made. (Similar to software companies, or the pharmaceutical industry, etc....)

    Thus, because of all of the above, you are not convincing me that your ideas are right. They may sound great, strong, manly and patriotic, but once you think about them, they are not all that smart. And that's why I think that crazy people should not have guns. I hope I made myself clear.

    As long as you are not insane, you can keep your guns, but please lock them up. As soon as you turn insane, please turn yourself in!

    You can see why I am not a politician or a lawyer. Too effing honest. "Vote Fritz, because at least he is honest", or "Vote Fritzie, because he means well" are not the best campaign slogans for myself, but that's all I got in the short run.

  20. Kez
    Facepalm

    "the bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms"

    Uhhh... One of these things is not like the other things

  21. troyfletcher

    Man 3D prints face grenade, is saved by police

    Plastic 3D printed AR-15 lowers fail after a few rounds. I've NEVER seen a 3d printed upper, because the direct impingement gas system actually vents relatively high pressure gas into the upper receiver.

    If he really did print the upper with anything but a $10,000+ metal printer, he made a face grenade, not a rifle. The lower failing is not as bad, as you can get a few rounds out of it before the buffer tube arm cracks and the whole things breaks in half.

    1. Colabroad

      Re: Man 3D prints face grenade, is saved by police

      The lower is the part with the serial number, so that's the part that needs a background check to buy.

      Which leads us the the slightly insane fact that it's possible to buy the upper, barrel, stock, trigger, etc without any form of checks.

      1. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: Man 3D prints face grenade, is saved by police

        I believe they put the serial number on the lower BECAUSE it's so critical to the proper operation of the thing. Tagging linchpin parts makes it harder to switch out the tags since you run the risk of breaking the thing in attempting a swap. Cars adopt a different strategy: placing the same tag in multiple places, including INSIDE places that can't be reached after assembly without making obvious cut-ups.

        1. Colabroad

          Re: Man 3D prints face grenade, is saved by police

          Critical, but also relatively simple, hence why you can 3D print one (with a somewhat limited amount of success/durability).

          I think in some countries they stamp serial numbers on several critical pieces like the barrel or bolt, to prevent this exact sort of thing. Want a second upper? That's fine, just register it's serial number alongside that of your existing upper and lower.

      2. troyfletcher

        Re: Man 3D prints face grenade, is saved by police

        That's nothing; search for 80% lower. :)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019