Americans Should Not Be Allowed to Make Untraceable Guns

Shotgun 3D Printer

courtesy twitter.com

“We know there a lot of loopholes in the law and so it is quite interesting that if you were to buy a gun and you were to physically remove the serial number it’s a federal felony and one of those that is routinely prosecuted. It’s considered an extremely serious crime, but the law does allow people that if you were to make a gun in your own home you wouldn’t have to put a serial number on the gun.

“The idea that technology will help people, who aren’t gunsmiths or gun hobbyists but potentially criminals who know really nothing about guns to push the button of a 3D-printer and create a gun that if used in crime could not be traced by police would be a game changer.” – David Chipman in Senior Policy Advisor at Giffords David Chipman On 3D-Printed Guns: “We Should Not Allow Americans To Produce Guns That Cannot Be Traced” [via foxnews.com]

comments

  1. avatar Peirsonb says:

    A serial number is only useful AFTER a gun is used to kill someone.

    Until then it doesn’t matter if you bought it, built it, or 3D printed it.

    1. avatar Justsomeguy says:

      It’s not particularly useful then either. Few if any crimes are solved by tracing a SN.

      1. avatar Ranger Rick says:

        You Sir are correct, the closets to success that BATFE has had for true crime solving is the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN). But even this system doesn’t do well with .22 rimfire or cartridges used in revolvers.

        1. avatar Forward Assist says:

          As far as I can tell, most folks can’t tell the difference between a 3-D printer and the Replicator on Star Trek.

          They talk of 3-D printing like it’s a gum ball machine where you drop some code in a slot, turn a crank, and an AK47 pops out.

          Wake me when a bank robber uses a 3-D printed gun.

          My fear here is with 4-D printed guns and bullets. “Evidence? I don’t see no stinking evidence!”

        2. avatar KenW says:

          a 4d printer would be interesting. print a simple square shape, go anywhere with it. No one pays attention since its not a gun, sprinkle some water on it and poof it changes into an assault rifle with 2 thingies that go up.
          Put it in sunlight and it changes back to a square shape.

        3. avatar Anonymous says:

          Come on Chipman!

          Criminals sure as F aren’t going to put serial numbers on the firearms they just made. Why do I have to????

      2. avatar Res says:

        The argument is a plea to ignorance and emotion. If there was real substantive interest in “saving lives” AND using brain cells (rather than emotional nonsense) then the facebook/twitter outrage and group think might move toward rationally looking at real issues. We keep hearing this garbage because it is seems a simple, harmless solution to low information voters, and is a great virtue signalling opportunity. If it solves any problems (unlikely) it creates more long term problems (cost of record keeping and gross infringement of law abiding people’s rights, yet does not deter actual criminal behavior).

        Probably the “best” value of bringing these “fixes” up for the leftist/anti-gun is that it depletes their followers brain processing capacity further, making them less and less likely to really look into the facts and real solutions to criminal behavior. The people I have met that are anti gun are so hung up on these ignorant “solutions” that they don’t want to hear anything other than simpering support for their useless/dangerous implanted ideologies of gun control.

        1. avatar Baldwin says:

          Slow your roll Res. So many facts all at once can actually make a liberal’s head explode. On second thought…

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          The argument is a plea to ignorance and emotion…

          Gun control is a plea for ignorance and emotion. The whole “we shouldn’t allow 3d printer data sharing” is a plea for ignorance.

          Gun grabbers and leftists want the people ignorant. They even want to legislate it.

          Let’s be honest. Our constitution, our values, our culture. They were meant for a moral and responsible people. Leftists admit, implicitly, with their pleas for ignorance (gun bans, control of gun knowledge, gun control), that people are inherently immoral and irresponsible. Their solution? Take that freedom away pronto!!! Never a moment for them to consider maybe they need to work on making people more moral and more responsible. It’s always the freedom that is the problem, not their garbage culture that they promulgate.

      3. avatar CZJay says:

        People steal the guns they are going to use in a crime and they tend to toss them after the crime is done. When it comes to murder.

        1. avatar Ingenero says:

          Yep. It’s rare that things happen otherwise, usually first time criminals or people who snap. The hard core, from what I’ve read, tend to steal and stash guns, which are then used by the gang or group. Thus it’s not anyone’s gun, and tracing it only tells you who it was stolen from. And knowing who owns a gun doesn’t tell you who fired it…it might tell you who sold it to them, but probably not since criminals often (shock!) steal or otherwise illegally acquire guns. And the feds and states tend not to prosecute the mom/grandma/girlfriend who was a straw buyer when they do know…so the serial numbers mainly exist to beat on normal citizens if their gun was stolen. Not much good for actual police work, but great at being a pain for legitimate gun owners.

        2. avatar CC says:

          And the feds and states tend not to prosecute the mom/grandma/girlfriend who was a straw buyer when they do know

          Because, per capita, profoundly over-represented in that perpetrator group are African American women.

        3. avatar GS650G says:

          +1 on demographics. You only hear about straw purchase prosecutions when it’s either high profile like Columbine or it’s a dude.

          The last gun I went to I saw plenty of girls filling out 4473s while their male friends hovered nearby.

      4. avatar Mark N. says:

        I have actually never seen the statistics on that. All I ever hear is how many traces the ATF did, which tells me squat. The real question is how many of those traces led to the criminal who used the gun. All a trace get you to is the gun store that first received it and the name of the first buyer, With a “time to crime” of near 10 years, the gun could have gone through numerous sales, on or off the books, or been stolen. Still a lot of footwork to do after the trace, and I suspect may are dead ends, or perhaps lead to a straw sale that will not be prosecuted.Do you have a link to crimes solved data? I doubt the ATF publishes it….

        1. avatar DaveL says:

          They’re remarkably cagey about that. I recall reading a report a while back on the firearm tracing system. Buried way in the back was a table that would indicate crimes actually solved by tracing over a period of several years worked out to a mere handful. I forget the exact number, but it was something less than a dozen. I’ll try and see if I can find it.

    2. avatar Dog of War says:

      You know I’ve mentioned it in other threads on other news stories. But we know that organized criminal gun smiths have been making near perfect copies of common designs. There’s even been documentaries about it. That begs the question: does anyone have any knowledge on any stats on duplicate series numbers showing up in ATF crime gun traces? I bet you could probably file a FOIA request on it, and in fact I’m considering doing that myself.

      1. avatar rosignol says:

        That’s a third world thing. Don’t expect a FOIA request to turn up much about it in the US.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Also, don’t expect a FOIA request to turn up much of anything…ever. If it’s important and makes the government look bad, they’ll find ways to hide it or stonewall you until you give up.

    3. avatar BLAMMO says:

      Understand that this thinking comes from the central idea that every gun should be registered and we should know where they are.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Serial numbers are for tracking…

        1. avatar arc says:

          Tracking that should end at the factory.

      2. avatar Ingenero says:

        Hence the fad for “smart guns”. Once you tie them to an owner, it’s a small step to GPS tracking if they’re fired or other such nonsense. The issues people have with unlocking smart phones with wet or dirty fingers don’t occur to the people who want more control, nor does the silliness of needing to charge something that otherwise is purely mechanical. Solid citizens will be inconvenienced, and the criminals will simply remove tracking and the interlocks. Gun technology is really old, anyone with a machine shop could jury-rig a fix to the “stop” some technogeek came up with on an electronics workbench.

      3. avatar GS650G says:

        They can’t find many stolen cars, how are they going to find stolen guns?

      4. avatar RMS1911 says:

        Other people in other countries have had that same idea it’s so them know where to confiscate them.

    4. avatar arc says:

      The only thing the serial number should be used for is account for the number of guns built, and if a recall needs to be issued for defects, not who it was sold to at the first point of sale. Buh, this is just me in my fantasy land.

      Home brew all the way!

    5. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      Gun sales records of serial numbered guns are helpful to a government that can use those sales records to confiscate guns.

      It was just a “movie” , Red Dawn, the original from the 1980s. When Russian invaders confiscated guns using sales lists taken from guns stores.

      It will happen for real in communist California first.

      1. avatar Ingenero says:

        They would try. California gun owners are pretty mobilized, so this would spark a rebellion. Or a civil war. Even if most people handed in their guns, the rest would require police kicking down doors. People would resist. Police and citizens defending their constitutional rights would die. Likely more of the first than the second initially, then things would escalate, and you’d start to have things really get out of hand. A good take on it: https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/rant-second-amendment-repeal/

        That’s why California is trying to do this slowly. Kicking down doors would end badly. I just hope the Supremes kill this stupidity sooner than later, otherwise some idiot will actually try, and things will get ugly. The people have more firearms in this country than the police and military combined, and plenty of the police and military would have zero interest in kicking down doors of friends and neighbors and risk getting shot (and many would support the 2A even without the risk). As I said, it wouldn’t end well for the gun controllers.

        1. avatar GS650G says:

          ” it’s slightly odd that you think that we can’t deport 11 million people but we can search 123 million homes.”

          favorite line from that article among the truths.
          I’ve always looked at gun control about making them more expensive and harder to own/buy than actually eliminating them from the country. There arent enough rough men to do that and it would take a few lifetimes to accomplish.

    6. avatar Old Fur Trapper says:

      Since colonial times our gun builders never stamped any serial numbers on their work. Only when large companies began producing arms for military and civilian markets were SNs used. Today, there are still thousands of civilian gun builders producing firearms with no serial numbers. The number on relates to who built it, what dealer sold it, the first buyer for handguns. After that, if the weapon is stolen or sold to multiple parties that commit a crime, it’s worthless.

  2. avatar Guardiano says:

    We’ve been making “untraceable” guns since the Founding. It’s never been an issue. This idiot probably doesn’t even know that, though.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      “We Should Not Allow Americans To Produce Guns That Cannot Be Traced”

      Speaking of the arms produced by Americans,nowhere in the Second Amendment do I read that “The Right To Keep and Bear Arms” only if they are serial numbered.
      It wasn’t even a requirement until the 1968 infringement that arms be serial numbered.

      1. avatar Mastro says:

        THE 1968 gun Control Act should be repealed.

        1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          I dunno how Amerika ever survived without badly needed legislative Gun Control. Has not done jack crap has it?

  3. avatar Esoteric Inanity says:

    “who aren’t gunsmiths or gun hobbyists but potentially criminals”

    In the eyes of a tyrannical government, who isn’t a potential criminal? So much for presumption of innocence and inalienable rights.

    1. avatar Salty Bear says:

      I came here to say this..

  4. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Removing a serial number is, one would think, a trivial exercise especially given the cheap and ready availability of Dremel tools and their generic equivalents. Let alone files, rasps, planes, end mills, etc.

    Does every “crime gun” have its serial number removed? If doing so is such a strong advantage to the criminal, and so easy to do, you’d expect so.

    I’d guess no, because it will lead the gun only to, at farthest, the last legal owner … if the police bother to trace it at all.

    1. avatar NukemJim says:

      Not an expert but it is my understanding that it is difficult to remove the serial number so that it cannot be recovered by a lab. If they are stamped by hand it is not too hard but if stamped at the factory it is much more likely to be recoverable.

      http://www.csitechblog.com/2011/07/how-crime-labs-restore-obliterated-serial-numbers.html

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        Not difficult at all. You just need to obliterate a stamped number with a punch instead of simply grinding or filing it off. John Ross knew that 20 years ago when he was writing Unintended Consequences, as did every criminal in the country who wasn’t solely self-taught.

        That link you referenced merely talks of filing it flat and applying an etching solution to bring up the stamping, when the number was the only thing stamped in that location.

        1. avatar Kenneth says:

          Not to mention welding a bead over the number. All it takes is a hundred dollar cheapo welder from horrible freight. But no criminals ever bother to do so(except for some professional killers who leave the gun at the scene). Why would they? If they buy the gun on the street, probably stolen, then it cannot be traced to them anyway. What does such a one care whether the police find out what factory made it when, and who they shipped it to?
          Name a crime that was solved by police finding a gun and tracing it to the guy who committed said crime. One that they didn’t already have a suspect under arrest anyway. They trace lots of guns, but they seldom get any useful information. That is why they use the number of traces as their signals of success, whereas real success would be the number of traces that directly led to the solving of the crime(if the crime wasn’t already solved anyway).
          Nobody publishes THAT number, because it is a tiny fraction of one percent.

        2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          “Not difficult at all. You just need to obliterate a stamped number with a punch instead of simply grinding or filing it off.”

          The 100 percent fool-proof way to obliterate the number is to drill it until you see daylight.

          Any other way, there is a small chance it can be recovered. Drilled fully through, *zero* chance…

        3. avatar Terclinger says:

          John Ross’ “Unintended Consequences” and Matt Bracken’s “Enemies Foreign and Domestic” trilogy are the best 2A literature I’ve read.

      2. avatar Anymouse says:

        Most crime guns are stolen. What’s the point of obliterating the serial number? It immediately says the holder is up to no good, and who cares if the police figure out that it was stolen from John Smith or Ann Jones? The only time it would really hurt is if it came from a prolific straw buyer.

    2. avatar Jeff K says:

      Guy had an NAA Mini Revolver stolen. It was found stuffed in a woman’s vagina during a cavity search at a jail. It was returned to him, hopefully in a bottle of alcohol. Truth stranger than fiction.

  5. avatar New Continental Army says:

    The government doesn’t “allow” a damn thing. That’s not how American law or the concept of liberty works. We can do anything by inherent right, until whatever it is we’re doing treads upon others.

    1. avatar surlycmd says:

      Exactly!

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Somehow this concept is not being taught any longer in government education centers,gee I wonder why.

      1. avatar New Continental Army says:

        Indeed. It actually takes a good deal of research to even come across the true concept of liberty. The vast majority of Americans really don’t understand. It’s something “they”, mainly the government elite, educators, the left, and really don’t want us to know about. To me it seems there’s more effort on behalf of the media and government to alter or cover up the true concept of liberty, then goes into covering up military secrets and hidden military technology.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          @ New Continental Army

          You Nailed it !

        2. avatar Ing says:

          Military/government secrets generally aren’t out in the open for everyone to see; hiding them is relatively easy.

          Freedom, on the other hand, is literally EVERYWHERE. You can see and feel it when you have it and especially when you don’t. The great achievement of education since the “liberal” progressive-left takeover has been to teach so many people not to want freedom at all — to not even see it.

          It takes a herculean effort, and my hat’s off to them; it’s a diabolical scheme, but they’ve worked really hard at it for a very long time.

  6. avatar MikeJH121 says:

    Because the Lib-Tards want all of them registered and tracked. They just won’t say it outright, just like their Democratic-Socialist mantra skirt around the actual words make it sound different than it is, lie, lie, lie.

    if they have a list, they can begin confiscating them.

  7. avatar derfel cadarn says:

    Actually in a FREE society no guns should be traceable.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      This !

  8. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    The point of all this “tracing” is …

    It’s not about “tracing” to reduce guns, or shooting, or crimes, or people getting killed. All these things are just excuses for more “tracing.”

    They just don’t like you doing or having anything without authorization. They’ll authorize what they want, not what you do, of course.

    In the end of their dreams, everything not compulsory is forbidden.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Not gun control but rather Control.

  9. avatar Felixd says:

    Using this logic votes should be traceable also. That way we can prevent the “wrong people” from expressing decent. How about our words. Shouldn’t we have controls on what the potential “thought” criminals are saying. They might disturb our utopia. And it’s not too far of a stretch to think about control of health care or even food. Just about anything that the assumed Patrician class comes up with we are supposed to obey because they know so much more than we poor peons. Anyone demanding controls to ease the burden of society or the government is a socialist in the purest form. This is leftist thinking and the oppression of a people hidden by what the press calls common sense. Our resistance is necessary to protect our liberty.

  10. avatar Fed Up says:

    I prefer the term “undocumented” because the terms “illegal” and “untraceable” are racist.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      After all turn about is fair play.

    2. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      Thank you I will start using this against the fascist/communist gun grabbers.

  11. avatar FedUp says:

    A serial number is only useful, in a criminal justice sense, if you intend to leave it at the scene of a crime after using it to commit a crime.

    Otherwise, it’s just the idea that we might be experiencing freedom that has upset the totalitarian freaks.

    1. avatar Mark says:

      How is even that useful given the gun was either stolen or purchased on the black market? What aid would a serial number have in the solving of a crime? I seriously want to know. This whole serial number thing is only useful for gun recalls due to manufacturing errors. It serves no purpose in a crime.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Might be useful in catching straw purchasers. But even if they could prevent those it would hardly put a dent in the availability of weapons for criminals.

      2. avatar Big Bill says:

        Tracing through the serial number is useful when pols want to force other areas (states) to enact harsher gun control laws, or, failing that, enact federal gun control laws.
        We have all heard about how IL and NY and NJ complain that tracing guns proves that guns are brought into these states from other states with looser laws, thus “proving” that their crime rates aren’t their fault, but the fault of someone (somewhere) else.
        As if these guns walked across the state border all by themselves, and then corrupted the minds of whoever they came into contact with.
        As for actual crimes being solved by using a serial number trace, I’ve heard of very, very few.

  12. avatar ollie says:

    The politicians in big blue shithole cities want tracing so as to prove that the guns used in crimes within their realms were brought in from evil redstates. That would provide a good excuse to ban all guns.
    All those presently vicious gangbanges would be perusing studies in Neurosurgery or Comparative French Literature if they weren’t being warped by having guns.

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    33 were shot overnight in Chiraq. I doubt any were filled with lead by those sneaky ghost guns…it’s HOT😦

  14. avatar m. says:

    NOYF business, d-sucker. Make America great, shut your JAMF pie-hole.

  15. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Now just figure out how to get a homemade gun ban past the courts under the commerce clause and go for it. The federal government doesn’t have the authority to ban them. Same with the so called ‘gunshow loophole’. The federal government doesn’t have the authority to interfere with the sale of my personal property to someone unless that property crosses state lines in the transaction.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      Whether or not it is considered “commerce” for one private person (not acting as an agent of a business) to transport a good (let’s say, as an example, an apple) across a state line to sell that apple to someone in the second state is up to the judge the case would come before. In such a case, the definition of “commerce” is up for grabs (it isn’t defined in the constitution).
      In practice, as far as I can determine (and IANAL), the states have taken it upon themselves to make the determination.
      California has, for example, made importation of ammunition into the state without going through a legally defined set of steps illegal. The feds don’t care, because to them, it’s not illegal. But if someone who is a resident of CA decides to go to Arizona, buy ammo, then take it back to CA, and is caught, he can be prosecuted by CA.

      But then, even the feds make some strange decisions concerning interstate commerce. Health insurance, for example, would be lower in cost if companies were allowed to compete across state lines, but the feds have followed the constitution in allowing the states to make this decision, while at the same time defying the constitution by mandating the purchase of insurance. (But I refer to a common mistake people make: expecting logic and reason from politicians)

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        ‘(But I refer to a common mistake people make: expecting logic and reason from politicians)’

        Or justices.

        The original intent of the commerce clause was not for the federal government to micromanage all commerce but to keep New Jersey from imposing tariffs on goods from Connecticut. But the courts have repeatedly abdicated their duty to keep the federal government in line by letting them twist the commerce clause into something completely unrecognizable to the men who wrote it. Still, there are limits. What would be the federal government’s argument under the commerce clause for a homemade gun ban? That due to the fact that you made a weapon at home it kept you from engaging in commerce and buying a manufactured one, and that you should have to purchase one instead? (I know – individual mandate.)

        1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

          I can’t recall the name of the case, but the one that tore it (unlimited shenanigans under the “commerce clause”) got all the way to the Supremes.

          A farmer was banned from growing foddder on his own farm for his own live stock because *growing it for himself would impact prices and demand across state lines.* Since everything is connected to everything else, it’s all commerce. Since everything you have, do or even say projects into the commercial — “commercial” understood as economic — perspective at least little, it’s all commerce.

          Much like the “general welfare” clause, a restriction / requirement on government impacting on individual free action as written, has been morphed into an unbounded mandate to do anydamnthing to “subordinate” individuals or jurisdiction, in the name of collective “management of commerce” or a collective “common good.”

          (Somehow, collective better “commerce” or more abstract “good” always seems to line up with whoever’s deciding and their clients. We never saw Candidate Clinton advocating for the elimination of the graft industry, or her sycophants for eliminating the supercillious opinionator part of the political / media complex. They were all just fine with irredeemable miners without the means to move being put out of business. For the “common good.” And it’s just commerce, so sure, the feds can do that. Examples from the other party-cartel are left as a trivial exercise for the reader…)

          /Meta
          I’m finally getting an operational line on the vague notion that some things go with the feds, and some things don’t. Yes, appeal to the constitution, but why must this or that be federal, and why must other stuff not? (President Wilson of course thought first that it didn’t have to be that way, and second that it was ok, indeed preferable, for people in the moment to make up what should be federal as they went. He thought he was a smart guy, as has Princeton, for quite a while. I am still waiting for them to memory hole him and their school of public policy … assuming the fact that he mandated segregating the federal workforce will come out again, eventually. Lovely fellow.)

          This isn’t exactly right yet, but heuristics for where authorities should reside are something like:

          “A government authority should only reside at the scale where there is a strong *halting condition* independent of the government itself, or the need for people to be angels.”

          “A government authority should only apply to the smallest scope where it can be effective.”

          The “all commerce / it’s all commerce” clause is ill-placed: authority over “commerce” should’t reside with the feds, as there’s no reliable halting condition for it’s spread. Applying the other one, we don’t need a mandated national health care “solution”: a sufficient population to support a complete delivery system, exercise purchasing leverage, and as a statistical universe for amortizing health risks is a few tens of thousands.

          The other arguments “for” a mandated national health care “solution” or commerce-wrangling are “public policy.” So, the name of Princeton’s Wilson school is actually directly on point — it’s about making policy. Them making policy for you, but that’s already understood buy the right people, and they don’t so much want the rest of us to understand.

          I do wish they’d be a bit less creepy and eroach-y. Tinfoil hats are not a good look for me.

        2. avatar DonS says:

          Jim Bullock-

          I believe the case you’re thinking of is Wickard v. Filburn.

          A much more recent case, heavily dependent on Wickard, is 2005’s Gonzales v. Raich.

          Gov-

          “What would be the federal government’s argument under the commerce clause for a homemade gun ban? That due to the fact that you made a weapon at home it kept you from engaging in commerce and buying a manufactured one, and that you should have to purchase one instead?”

          That was PRECISELY the conclusion of the SCOTUS in Gonzales v. Raich. By producing a commodity at home, a commodity for which there is an interstate market, you are no longer buying on the interstate market. Your home production, therefore, affects interstate commerce and may be regulated (up to and including an outright ban) by Congress.

        3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          In the US vs. Lopez the SCOTUS did actually place a limit to the absurd abuse of the commerce clause.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

        4. avatar DonS says:

          Gov-
          Yes, and in Gonzales v. Raich, the respondents tried to use Lopez. The SCOTUS rejected their argument, saying:
          “our opinion in Lopez casts no doubt on the validity of such a program” (where “program” refers to the Controlled Substances Act)
          and
          “unlike those at issue in Lopez and Morrison, the activities regulated by the CSA are quintessentially economic”.

      2. avatar DonS says:

        while at the same time defying the constitution by mandating the purchase of insurance.

        Fortunately, the SCOTUS kicked Congress to the curb on that one. Congress may not compel commercial activity (though they can certainly tax you for just about anything they want).

    2. avatar DonS says:

      Gov-

      That ship sailed in 2005 with the SCOTUS decision in Gonzales v. Raich (545 U.S. 1).

      The end result of that decision is that if there’s an interstate market for a commodity, then Congress can regulate all production of that commodity, even if it never leaves your home – much less crosses state lines.

      While that case addressed the at-home growing and consumption of marijuana, the decision is just as applicable to making your own guns, having a fruit tree in your back yard, or baking chocolate chip cookies.

      Justice O’Connor was spot-on in her dissent:
      “the Court’s definition of economic activity for purposes of Commerce Clause jurisprudence threatens to sweep all of productive human activity into federal regulatory reach.”

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        They weaponized the commerce clause like they did the general welfare.

        Isn’t the commerce clause to stop states like California from banning the sell of products produced legally in another state?

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        After the Constitutional Convention someone asked Ben Franklin if we had a republic or a monarchy and Franklin responded, ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’

      3. avatar suspicious says:

        Does this mean that I cannot grow a vegetable garden? Vegetables are available at the market, some have been shipped interstate.

  16. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Well 1st I have to go out and buy or steal a 6 thousand dollar 3D printer.
    Then figure a way to make usable springs and a firing pin out of plastic. Not metal as it is in the single shot 22lr Liberator. Or if I wanted to I can print off a receiver for an AR15. Then buy the rest of the parts off some local stores shelves.
    But 1st I have to learn how to use the machine.
    Ohhhhhhhhhhh the heck with all that. Its much easier to buy a real gun on almost any street corner or at any gun show.
    Isnt it??

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      It is for now.
      But technology marches on. What was hard a few decades ago is easy now. (We have only to look at animation in movies. It used to be hand painted, one frame at a time. Then it took server farms hours to do a few seconds on screen effects. Now, it takes a few minutes to render a few minutes of screen effects by one computer.)
      Who knows what we’ll be able to “print” at home in twenty years?
      I’m certainly not arguing for new laws against 3D printed guns. To the contrary, I’m pointing out that such laws are useless in the face of ongoing technology advances.

    2. avatar Kenneth says:

      Or to just buy two pieces of pipe, an end cap, and a nail from any hardware store…
      http://americanshootingjournal.com/homemade-12-gauge-slamfire-guns/#bjfyjhxt
      Show this to a leftist near you and watch their faces turn red like a balloon full of jam. 🙂

    3. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Street corner, maybe.

      Gun show, not in my experience. The ones I’ve been to, even private sellers were generally wanting to see and record a driver’s license # and buyer’s address … and giving theirs to the buyer, so the buyer could say definitively who sold them the gun if the issue ever came up.

  17. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    “The idea that technology will help people, who aren’t gunsmiths or gun hobbyists but potentially criminals ( WHICH ALL OF THE PROLES REALLY ARE) who know really nothing about guns to push the button of a 3D-printer and create a gun that if used in crime could not be traced by ( THE MINISTRY OF LOVE) police would be a game changer ( FOR INGSOC)”

  18. avatar CZ Peasy says:

    Has a VIN ever solved a drunk driving crime? Also, all guns are traceable. You just need a sheet of paper, lay the gun down on it, and take a pencil to make an outline.

  19. avatar Bryan Pennington says:

    Is it me or is The Truth About Guns now a left leaning outlet?

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      It’s you. They quote these idiots so we can see what the anti’s are saying about us and our rights. “Know thy enemy”.

    2. avatar rosignol says:

      This kind of thing gets posted to call attention to it, not because anyone running the site agrees with it.

    3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      We need comedy relief as the Progtards dazzle us with their giant intellectual capabilities.

  20. avatar Fudds Mckenzie says:

    Allow? You still don’t understand how this works. Cody Wilson has chosen not to allow you to make that call.

  21. avatar General Zod says:

    Another proto-totalitarian wearing his ignorance like a crown.

  22. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Serial numbers are fairly recent invention, and were initially totally up to the manufacturer as a way to manage inventory, etc.. It wasn’t a govt requirement till GCA 1968. I have more than one working firearm that never had a serial number to start with.

  23. avatar Rand says:

    What is the rationale for removing a serial number? The only thing it might attempt to conceal is the gun is stolen. The crime of removing the number is much worse.

    In reality, the crime that gets the perp caught with a gun with an obliterated serial number will be much worse than a charge for removing the serial number and will just be an add-on count.

    We know they plea to nothing anyway so this is misplaced hype. Why not support something effective like zero tolerance gun violence laws with mandatory sentencing?

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      “Why not support something effective like zero tolerance gun violence laws with mandatory sentencing?”

      Zero tolerance sounds good when you’re outraged, but not so good when you are the target of that outrage. Zero tolerance gets us children punished because a pop-tart was chewed into the shape of a gun.
      Mandatory sentencing also sounds good when you’re outraged…
      But extenuating circumstances are not able to influence a mandatory sentence. They remove the human from the equation of justice (the judge or jury).
      I do believe we should apply the laws we have in an attempt to curb violence (of which violence using guns is but a small part) before we try to make such violence even illegaller, though.

  24. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    The only value to tracing is to make confiscation appear to be possible. Chuckle Schumer and his ilk want people to think he can trace all the Wizbang Super 2000s and make people turn them in. Gun banners are neither very bright, nor are they particularly logical. Rational thought evaporates like the insubstantial mists of a light morning fog faced with the hot sun of their devotion to their socialist masters.

    1. avatar Toni says:

      No ones like Chuck Schumer are bright, it is those that vote for them that are not. What they want is to get the guns out of the hands of those who would rise up against them or support those who would rise up leaving them defenseless. They care not about the guns in the hands of criminals as they use them to apply ever more draconian legislation and make their own power over the plebs greater. Why do you think the standard of education has been dropping for decades? Most when our grandfathers went to school knew far more of importance to life and living by the end of primary school than most now do by the end of high school. most were more literate and had a reasonable handle on maths and civics etc

  25. avatar Ralph says:

    So if I made a gun at home at put a serial number on it, that would help the cops trace it how exactly?

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Obviously, the serial number will be put into a computer database and physical records (to prevent gun violence). The law will make you report where that item goes to build a history of who, what, when and where (to stop the black market). That way when law enforcement shows up at your house they know what gun you have (for officer safety). When you do anything abnormal the government will decide to send SWAT to your house to take all your serial numbered guns (for public safety). Because at the end of the day, ghost guns are way too scary (for the children). The only good gun is a registered gun.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        The only good gun is a confiscated gun.
        Name of the real game.

        1. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

          You hit the nail on the head. Some are of the idea that all gun owners are “potential criminals/murderers.

    2. avatar Big Bill says:

      If you were to do that, you would also need to comply with all the rules and regulations that go along with being a gun manufacturer.

  26. avatar Icabod says:

    “Criminals are far more likely to acquire guns from family and acquaintances than by theft, according to new studies by researchers at Duke University and the University of Chicago.“There are a number of myths about how criminals get their guns, such as most of them are stolen or come from dirty dealers. We didn’t find that to be the case,” said Philip J. Cook, a professor of public policy, economics and sociology at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy. One study asked inmates of the Cook County Jail in Chicago how they obtained guns, while a second project analyzed data that traced guns used in crimes. The gun trace requests were submitted to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) by the Chicago Police Department from 2009 to 2013. Key findings from the studies include: — 60 percent of the respondents obtained guns by purchase or trade.– Most offenders obtained guns from personal connections, not from gun stores or by theft.– Most of the guns were old (11 years old on average), and criminals held onto the guns a short time, frequently less than a year. — ”
    https://today.duke.edu/2015/09/crooksandguns

    1. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

      “Criminals are far more likely to acquire guns from family and acquaintances than by theft, according to new studies by researchers at Duke University and the University of Chicago.“There are a number of myths about how criminals get their guns, such as most of them are stolen or come from dirty dealers. We didn’t find that to be the case,” said Philip J. Cook, a professor of public policy, economics and sociology at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy. One study asked inmates of the Cook County Jail in Chicago how they obtained guns, while a second project analyzed data that traced guns used in crimes. The gun trace requests were submitted to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) by the Chicago Police Department from 2009 to 2013. Key findings from the studies include: — 60 percent of the respondents obtained guns by purchase or trade.– Most offenders obtained guns from personal connections, not from gun stores or by theft.– Most of the guns were old (11 years old on average), and criminals held onto the guns a short time, frequently less than a year. — ”

      This statement does not tell us where the guns came from that the criminal acquired. It might tell the percentage that come directly from gun stores but not whether the guns were stolen by someone else and then sold to the criminal.” 60 percent of the respondents obtained guns by purchase or trade.” Who did the purps. buy or trade with to aquire the gun? Where did that person aquire the gun?

  27. avatar Icabodki says:

    In WWII Philippine fighters made shotguns from pieces of pipe and a nail. They’d get close to a Japanese soldier, kill him and take his weapon.

    1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      Attacking Japanese police officers and taking their side arm is still going on in the 21st century.

  28. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    3d printing won’t have any measurable effect on gun crime in the USA. It WILL be the end of gun control. That’s what the antis are really freaking out about.

    How can you justify restrictions on law abiding gun owners , when those same restrictions are easily impossible to enforce against criminals?

    Sure WE know this has always been the case. but the more obvious it becomes , the worse things are for the Brady Bunch.

  29. avatar rt66paul says:

    Probably 10% of the guns owned by Americans don’t have a serial number. Guns were not required to have them before 1968 – many small manufacturers and foreign manufacturers did not put serial numbers on their guns, particularity the primary design and first run of said model. These guns are owned by families that may have never fired them, many still new in the box. Anyone who manages estate sales will affirm this – I wish I could buy these guns without state interference. Many families have guns like these kept in the family as treasures(since they did cost a lot of money at the time). So are they going to try to force us to put an identifying number on all older weapons?

    1. avatar HP says:

      I think California passed a law stating anyone has made a firearm from an 80% lower or otherwise is required to serialize the gun with the state.

      Because the types of people who mill their own firearms are going to be the first to line up to tell the Communists destroying California that they have those guns, hahahaha

  30. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “..We know there a lot of loopholes in the law”

    Again with that word…. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    (insert graphic of Inigo Montoya here)

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      If *I* like a particular interpretation of a law, it’s a feature.
      If *you* like a particular interpretation of a law, and *I* don’t, it’s a loophole.
      That’s hot it works.
      🙂

  31. avatar HP says:

    I don’t need to build my own firearm from the ground up, but these people are getting so annoying that I feel like I might have to buy an 80% lower and do it, just for the sake of doing it.

  32. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    We really need to put a serial number on every journalist and politician and all news stories should carry the serial number of the person creating the story. Journalists should also require passing a test and registration process to ensure a lack of bias as well as subject matter expertise on any story they place.

    After all, the founding fathers could not have conceived how modern “newsmakers” could so readily distribute their views.

  33. avatar Jackass Jim says:

    How about this:

    Get a 3-D printer, programming, a ghost gunner CNC machine, along with all the raw materials needed to make a “printed” gun. Then, put it in a room with full internet access, and a desktop computer. Then invite any one of these goofy gun control blabbermouths to come in and make a gun.

    I’d suggest a live TV feed, but after an hour or so the audience would be gone due to utter boredom.

    The likelihood of a functional gun being produced is essentially nil.

  34. avatar Gralnok says:

    I love the picture. Pretty sure this is what the anti-gun people think of when they hear 3D printed guns.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      “everything’s fine, hon. just clearing a paper jam…”

      “‘puterbox says the printer needs a new cartridge…”

  35. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    Let’s ban 3D liberals instead.

  36. avatar Mustrum says:

    I have been making my own guns for almost 55 years. I started with single shot smooth bore cap lock pistols then flintlocks first with kits from dixi for the locks and eventually all on my own. I mad a reduced version of a rifling bench to rifle pistole barrels and learned about gain twist rifling the nest step at about 20 years in was to make single shot guns with falling block and rolling block actions…. I have marked every one with my initials and the date right next to the cal and load info stamped on the barrel or action… I guess by now I am a self taught gunsmith/gun repairman but i don’t have the artistic skills to do engraving and fancy stuff so I think claiming to be a real classic gunsmith is too much of a reach. but on the way I have become self taught machinist with a full machine shop, selftaught wood worker (who has made a lot of carved fire wood learning how to shape stocks) The point I I can not think of making a gun with out putting my mark on it… I have made arrangements to leave my creations to people who know that they can not sell the cartridge guns as I do not have a FFL makers license (just a C&R). but I do wonder what will happen a few generations down the line when the fact that the cartridge guns were not made in a factory will be forgotten and someone will get in trouble fro selling one of the.

  37. avatar piper says:

    I’ve only heard of one murderer caught by tracing a gun’s serial number and catching up with the killer. It was a twice stolen gun that was then sold at a pawn shop and found by police in Florida.

    There are probably more instances of this, but it must be very rare.

  38. avatar bobby b says:

    So when I do get around to 3D-printing a gun, I’ll print a “000001” on it. When I make a second one, I’ll print “000002” on it.

    I feel safer already.

  39. avatar burley says:

    There are no loopholes in a law that states; “shall not be infringed…”.
    There are only intrusions, infringements and other illegal attempts to curtail a natural, protected, enumerated RIGHT. Any American who says something that starts with “Americans should not be allowed to…” and then adds anything from the bill of rights should have a burka super glued to their heads and be forced to live in Iran for an attitude adjusting period of time.

  40. avatar little horn says:

    untraceable or did they mean undetectable? the latter being already illegal.
    if they really mean traceable, i have yet to get a anti-gun person to describe the benefits of tracing someones gun AFTER they have already committed the crime. i’ve gotten nothing but idiocy “it will help them catch him” implying that there actually IS a mass shooter that was never caught. completely missing the point that you are, most likely, not going to have a gun WITHOUT a shooter. you usually get them together, mass shooter wise speaking. but logic isn’t their strong point.

  41. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    You can buy a complete kit to build your own muzzleloader at home. No serial number required. Its been legal for years now.

    https://www.traditionsfirearms.com/category/Build-it-Yourself-Kits

    I have seen guys build traditional African black powder long guns from kits as well on YT.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email