Three-dimensional Printed Firearms; Prohibiting the printing, transferring, importing into this state, distributing, selling, possessing, or giving to another person certain 3D-printed firearms as of a specified date; providing criminal penalties; requiring persons in possession of such firearms to relinquish them to a law enforcement agency or to the Department of Law Enforcement or to destroy them before the prohibition takes effect, etc.
Here is the definition of printed gun:
Isn’t the metal part already Federal law from back when Glocks came into the market? If so (somebody let me know in the comments) this is nothing but a feel-&-make-me-look-good-for-TV bill. Notice how they smartly did not go after the code to print guns, even Florida Congresscritter stays away from that constitutional booby trap.
Yes, the requirement to include a detectable amount of metal is part of Federal law.
Interesting that they list a specific set of plastics. I don’t see nylon listed there, which is the matrix used by MarkForged machines. Those are actually far more plausible gun printers because they use fiber reinforced plastics. I can imagine a kevlar-reinforced frame being actually feasible, while a toy printer plastic frame clearly is not.
Can you email me a write up about this for follow up posting?
Or shall keep our mouths shut and not giving them ideas? 😀
Oddly for the ATF, they’ve ruled that the metal content is for a completed firearm and not just the serialized part. A Glock frame wouldn’t pass rigor by this law.
Why not? It says “firearm” too, not “frame” (line 30).
It’s funny, and probably helpful for invalidating this in court, that the bill proposes to outlaw a device based solely on the method used to manufacture it. The exact same object produced by injection molding, laying down composite plastics, or on a CNC milling machine would be perfectly ok. It’s a bit like outlawing pornography produced on a typewriter but not if it’s printed on a printing press or laser printer or handwritten.