Local news via Baldr
Today, we learn that two felons in Oregon were arrested and charged with illegally possessing firearms, one of which deputies believe was 3D printed. Nolan DeBell, 42, and Joshua Holloway, 27, were arrested three weeks ago on June 9 when deputies found a large number of illegally-modified and stolen firearms at their house in Chiloquin, Oregon. One of the weapons that was seized was an AR-15 assault rifle, which included a lower receiver that investigators now believe had been 3D printed. The lower receiver is of course a part of the gun that contains the firing mechanism, and is basically what makes the gun “work”.
“Being felons, they could not have purchased the lower receiver,” Detective Eric Shepherd of the Klamath County Sheriff’s Office explained.
While there continues to be significant talks about making the 3D printing of certain gun parts and other weapons illegal, at the current time it is not. However, there are laws that restrict the possession of, or manufacturing of a firearm that is not detectible by a metal detector or airport security system. Because most desktop 3D printers fabricate objects out of plastic, this lower receiver most definitely would not have been picked up by a metal detector.
guns for everyone
ReplyDeleteApparently not for these guys- being that they were arrested and all.
While there continues to be significant talks about making the 3D printing of certain gun parts and other weapons illegal, at the current time it is not.
Again, being that they were arrested for having any gun, I'm not seeing the value in calling for it to be illegal to 3D print parts for something that they are not allowed to have in the first place.
What law could stop this? Every time someone prints a gun, he or she also prints the story of the end of "gun control's" relevance. That's what I love to see.
ReplyDeleteYes, we all know you love guns for everyone. That's why I call you a monster. You don't give a fuck about easy access to guns by dangerous people and all the harm that does - as long as it doesn't inconvenience you.
DeleteThat's why I call you a monster.
DeleteAnd here I was thinking that your reason is that name-calling is your chief "debating" strategy.
I regret the harm done by people with guns (and that done by people with boxcutters, with gasoline and matches, with knives, with poison, with fists and feet, etc., etc.), but part of the price of liberty is that some will abuse that liberty for evil purposes.
It's a price easily worth paying, a million times over.
And by the way, how would the lack of untraceable, uncontrollable 3-D printed guns "inconvenience" me? I'm not a "prohibited person," and I'm not cursed with the horror of living in a jurisdiction where so-called "assault weapons" or "high capacity" magazines are banned, so at least given the state of 3-D printing technology (and the price of the printers) today, simply buying a regime change rifle (as I prefer to call them) already made is far more "convenient" than printing one would be.
DeleteIf this gun problem were just about you Kurt, we would have no gun problem. Typical gun loon selfishness, could care less how many innocents die from gun shot.
Delete"If this gun problem were just about you Kurt, we would have no gun problem."
DeleteIf Kurt isn't part of the problem Anon, how exactly does making him lose rights to own the firearms he wishes fix the problem of gun violence?
Because rights and laws cover the whole population not just a few gun loons like you guys. Not everyone kills, but we have laws against killing. Not everyone speeds, but we have laws against speeding. It's called safety for the common good, a concept you gun loons don't understand.
Delete"Not everyone kills, but we have laws against killing. Not everyone speeds, but we have laws against speeding. It's called safety for the common good, a concept you gun loons don't understand."
DeleteAnon, your examples above involve illegal activities which are prosecuted against people who break those laws. So if individuals dont engage in the illegal activities you suggested, then we should be left alone.
However, passing a law against mere possession of a certain firearm because someone else has misused it in the past is restricting the rights of someone who has committed no such crime and is not only wrong, but didn't have any discernable effect the last time it was tried. And when the law expired, crime didn't increase.
That's your idiotic interpretation, which has basis in fact. Your individual rights stop when you harm innocent individuals, and government has the responsibility to stop the gun shot deaths od innocent victims. And no, we don't wait til someone is dead when we know how to stop the problem. Welcome to CIVIL society, not your do as you please no matter who dies selfish, dangerous, anti-society thinking.
Delete"Your individual rights stop when you harm innocent individuals, and government has the responsibility to stop the gun shot deaths od innocent victims."
DeleteAgain Anon, neither myself or Kurt have harmed anyone. And people up in my neck of the woods are quite civil. And they also respect gun rights.
Again, that's not the point and your dishonesty proves the point.
Delete"However, passing a law against mere possession of a certain firearm because someone else has misused it in the past is restricting the rights of someone who has committed no such crime and is not only wrong, but didn't have any discernable effect the last time it was tried."
DeleteBut, we do prohibit the ownership of heavy weapons. It's just a question of where we draw the line. Most people, even most gun rights people, accept the restriction on surface-to-air missiles and shoulder-held rocket launchers, to name just two.
True Mike, and for the most part, gun owners have been ok with the limitations that have long been in place. However, the current direction now seems to be to pick certain types of previously legal firearms and outlaw their possession, even though their misuse of pretty rare when compared to overall gun violence figures.
DeletePerhaps they thought that few would object, but it turns out that they have become quite popular among gun owners. Which might be one reason that the ban on these firearms isn't turning out to be as easy as they hoped.
"and for the most part, gun owners have been ok with the limitations that have long been in place."
DeleteHow long has this 3D process been around?
So in the pile of stolen firearms recovered, they found an AR that MIGHT have been printed, or it might have been a completed 80% lower, which would also not have a serial number.
ReplyDeleteThey are also being charged for possession of the regular firearms.
"However, there are laws that restrict the possession of, or manufacturing of a firearm that is not detectible by a metal detector or airport security system. Because most desktop 3D printers fabricate objects out of plastic, this lower receiver most definitely would not have been picked up by a metal detector."
Unless they put all of the parts into the lower receiver which makes it work. Which happen to be made out of metal, to say nothing of the required metal parts in the upper receiver.
BTW, here is the original article that the posted article came from,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.heraldandnews.com/news/seized-assault-rifled-presumed-to-be-made-with-d-printer/article_c6ba7b78-709c-5a94-8047-21ff09e05d8b.html