Philly Becomes First City to Ban 3D Gun Printing

Mohonri

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
5,757
Yes, by all means let's ban 3D-printed guns. Because the gangs are having such trouble procuring traditional weapons :/
 
S

shade91

Guest
Because banning guns has been soooooo effective (hi Washington DC, Chicago).
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
Oh, good. Now, just like with other gun control measures, the law-abiding people will obey the law, and the people we actually need to worry about will break it.
 

Z06

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
1,546
Okay, go to the next town over print the fucking gun. THEN go into Philly. Politicians are fucking retarded... Criminals do not obey laws.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,696
So someone intent on killing someone will be deterred by a municipal ordinance? Idiots.
But, I guess, they are not alone.
 
D

Deleted member 204526

Guest
Okay, go to the next town over print the fucking gun. THEN go into Philly. Politicians are fucking retarded... Criminals do not obey laws.
It's all about the appearance of doing something with politicians. The bastards (and bitches) do far too much as it is.
 

The Gonz

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
1,131
outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

I get why they did it. like SYM said, to appear they are doing something. I would add, now they can add a fine to an honest person carrying one.

they missed a chance to try a smarter approach whatever that may be.
 

pjs37

n00b
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
11
I can see the end of this law quickly. PA has a state preemption law that prevents municipalities, cities and towns from creating their own gun laws. It won't last even a remote test case if it even makes it to trial.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,189
Unenforceable.
You could say the same thing about any crime related laws from running drugs to modifying semi-automatic weapons to fire fully automatic. Until you get caught then the shit storm of "you broke the law" comes down on you, then you can be prosecuted.
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
You could say the same thing about any crime related laws from running drugs to modifying semi-automatic weapons to fire fully automatic. Until you get caught then the shit storm of "you broke the law" comes down on you, then you can be prosecuted.

Funny, that. Almost like bans only serve to criminalize activity, not to actually prevent it from happening.
 

gossipninja1

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
120
You could say the same thing about any crime related laws from running drugs to modifying semi-automatic weapons to fire fully automatic. Until you get caught then the shit storm of "you broke the law" comes down on you, then you can be prosecuted.

The other issue is state preemption, which disallows cities and counties from making their own "ad hoc" gun laws.

This is so a citizen who is legal in one city with respect to firearm laws, can drive 2 towns over and not fall afoul a gun law a random city has on the books. Some cities have passed 7 round magazine limits and such, so if you have a legal carry gun that holds, say 9 rounds, just entering the city is a crime, even though you would have no knowledge of it.

You are expected to know the state and federal laws (2 sets of rules) you compound that exponentially when you add in counties (67), cities and townships, etc. No one can be expected to know and follow over a hundred different sets of rules.
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
City-level bans are pretty pointless. Hell, even state-level bans are pretty pointless when it's only a short drive from one state to the next.
 

OlIv0rIolI

Gawd
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
634
You could say the same thing about any crime related laws from running drugs to modifying semi-automatic weapons to fire fully automatic. Until you get caught then the shit storm of "you broke the law" comes down on you, then you can be prosecuted.

"Give me a man and I will find you his crime". Just saying.
Nowadays there are so many laws and so many regulations that pretty much anyone is a criminal.
 

ByblosHex

n00b
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
48
The law is actually illegal, and will be overturned the first time someone is accused of it. Just like any other time Philly tries to pass their own laws contradicting the State. They do it several times a year.
 

Aluisious

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,189
Citing "internet stuff" as a reason to do anything tells you how much thought went into it.
 

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,811
City-level bans are pretty pointless. Hell, even state-level bans are pretty pointless when it's only a short drive from one state to the next.
So you're suggesting Federal Intervention under the auspice that the States have trouble enforcing such laws due to inter-state activity. So it's with-in the federal governments' domain if the majority of states find this to be troubling.
 

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,811
The law is actually illegal, and will be overturned the first time someone is accused of it. Just like any other time Philly tries to pass their own laws contradicting the State. They do it several times a year.
How so, cities can pass ordnances banning the manufacturing of weapons with in their boarders, cities only have issue when they try to change possession laws in conflict with the state/federal.
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
So you're suggesting Federal Intervention under the auspice that the States have trouble enforcing such laws due to inter-state activity. So it's with-in the federal governments' domain if the majority of states find this to be troubling.

I'm not suggesting anything, just pointing out the bleeding obvious that trying to ban something that you can easily get a few minutes walk or even a few hours drive away is completely pointless. You either have to accept that you won't successfully be able to ban it or institute a higher level ban, I wasn't suggesting either of them, just that anything else is pointless.

Like that town that tried to outlaw rock music and dancing in that movie :p Your ban needs to be wide enough or small enough that you can actually control the traffic of the banned item.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,189
Funny, that. Almost like bans only serve to criminalize activity, not to actually prevent it from happening.
Once again, just like any other type of law out there. I know it's kind of short sighted but there is an aspect of civilization that expects citizens to follow the rules set forth.

No having sex with minors law. How exactly does that prevent it from happening? Because most people would rather not risk 20 years in prison for banging a 15 year old.

Speed limit of 65mph. How exactly does it prevent someone from speeding? The fear of getting a ticket.

Murder. How exactly does have laws on the books making murder illegal prevent it from happening? The people who don't want to spend life in jail just because that "bitch of an ex was banging the neighbor" or whatever.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,189
The law is actually illegal, and will be overturned the first time someone is accused of it. Just like any other time Philly tries to pass their own laws contradicting the State. They do it several times a year.

Not familiar with Pennsylvania state laws, but there are no laws that restrict the manufacturer of firearms to those who are licensed to do so? Kind of like in many states.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
They should ban marijuana too, then no criminals would ever have access to it if it were a controlled substance. There is simply no way that the product could still make it to the street.

:rolleyes:
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
Speed limit of 65mph. How exactly does it prevent someone from speeding? The fear of getting a ticket.
But going full retard is thinking that banning 3D gun printing is going to have an effect on criminals that are using the gun to:
1) Kill someone.
2) Commit some other crime that is already highly illegal with any firearm, yet alone an unlicensed one.
3) Commit a murder-suicide.

This is common sense, but for some reason people just fail to grasp it. Yes, a law abiding citizen is going to abide by a "keep off the grass sign" even if its just a $50 fine. But someone that is robbing the bank in front of the sign is probably going to ignore it, considering he's already committing crimes with far harsher penalties.
 

Wrecked Em

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
7,690
Personally, I find the law extremely short sided. At current techlevels, a 3d printed gun is extremely likely to malfunction. Anyone commiting a crime with one is much more likely to fail with a printed gun vs a conventionally smithed gun. 3d printed weapons could inadvertently promote a huge reduction in "successful" crimes, and actually make it easier for law enforcement.
 
D

Deleted member 204526

Guest
Apropos here, I suppose: http://weaponsman.com/?p=12141#comment-76614

“WeaponsMan,” we can hear you thinking. “Dey already done dat.” Well, not exactly. Sure, they printed a gun before, but this time they did something pretty amazing: they printed all 34 non-spring parts in a single go (see the photo of the parts below, fresh from the laser-sintering machine with only the unused powder removed yet). And they printed it of Inconel 625, which you’ve probably never used in a gun before (but if you’ve ever flown in a jet airplane, it was probably the turbofan engine’s hot-section shaft and several other critical parts.

So we're getting there, which I think is pretty great.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,189
But going full retard is thinking that banning 3D gun printing is going to have an effect on criminals that are using the gun to:
1) Kill someone.
2) Commit some other crime that is already highly illegal with any firearm, yet alone an unlicensed one.
3) Commit a murder-suicide.

This is common sense, but for some reason people just fail to grasp it. Yes, a law abiding citizen is going to abide by a "keep off the grass sign" even if its just a $50 fine. But someone that is robbing the bank in front of the sign is probably going to ignore it, considering he's already committing crimes with far harsher penalties.

I don't think the story said in it that the reason for this ban was to prevent criminals from using 3d printers to make guns or parts to commit crimes. However just like I said, bans on heroin or cocaine don't exactly stop criminals from smuggling/distributing those substances. If anything this ban is simply to try and say "hey it's illegal for you to do that" and Joe Average will comply which in the grand scheme of things will probably stop more injury (due to mishap of not realizing said 3d printed gun parts probably will hurt the user more so than anyone else)
 

pjs37

n00b
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
11
Not familiar with Pennsylvania state laws, but there are no laws that restrict the manufacturer of firearms to those who are licensed to do so? Kind of like in many states.

Actually manufacturing laws tend to come into play when it comes to the sale of firearms. If you make it for your personal use then the Federal Government doesn't require a license. As far as PA laws go there is nothing I am aware of that prevents you from manufacturing your own firearm at least as far as the law is written. The only restrictions are that you must legally be allowed to own a firearm to begin with. So whatever federal restrictions are in play are the only limitations.

All that not withstanding, Philadelphia cannot make laws on their own in regards to any firearm control to include the manufacturing of firearms.

(a) General rule.--No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.
(a.1) No right of action.--
(1) No political subdivision may bring or maintain an action at law or in equity against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association or dealer for damages, abatement, injunctive relief or any other relief or remedy resulting from or relating to either the lawful design or manufacture of firearms or ammunition or the lawful marketing or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public.
 

Trimlock

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
15,228
But going full retard is thinking that banning 3D gun printing is going to have an effect on criminals that are using the gun to:
1) Kill someone.
2) Commit some other crime that is already highly illegal with any firearm, yet alone an unlicensed one.
3) Commit a murder-suicide.

This is common sense, but for some reason people just fail to grasp it. Yes, a law abiding citizen is going to abide by a "keep off the grass sign" even if its just a $50 fine. But someone that is robbing the bank in front of the sign is probably going to ignore it, considering he's already committing crimes with far harsher penalties.

This isn't a law to 'prevent' those from happening. Its a preventative law being put in place so they can either help prevent those from trying to make a business out of this by providing illegally printed firearms to criminals or actually get them on something illegal.

If you are using this for personal use you won't get your door kicked down and the NSA coming to install a GPS tracker in your rectum because they care.
 

michael.pa2

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
2,998
I would presume there are already laws regulating the production of firearms,regardless of the method used to make them. The problem with 3D is that the weapons would be unregistered with no way to track them,and would make guns even easier to obtain. This ban may be difficult to enforce,but if the politicians do nothing,and some maniac with a 3D produced gun walks into mall and starts blowing people away,you know damn well the public will call for their heads.
 

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
I just want to know why Philly drivers are so terrible.
 

Trimlock

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
15,228
I would presume there are already laws regulating the production of firearms,regardless of the method used to make them. The problem with 3D is that the weapons would be unregistered with no way to track them,and would make guns even easier to obtain. This ban may be difficult to enforce,but if the politicians do nothing,and some maniac with a 3D produced gun walks into mall and starts blowing people away,you know damn well the public will call for their heads.

There are federal laws, but this is to close any loophole that may have started with the 3d printing. At least that's how I see it.
 

Aluisious

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,189
I would presume there are already laws regulating the production of firearms,regardless of the method used to make them. The problem with 3D is that the weapons would be unregistered with no way to track them,and would make guns even easier to obtain. This ban may be difficult to enforce,but if the politicians do nothing,and some maniac with a 3D produced gun walks into mall and starts blowing people away,you know damn well the public will call for their heads.

You presumed incorrectly, so why even bother?
 

Aluisious

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
2,189
There are federal laws, but this is to close any loophole that may have started with the 3d printing. At least that's how I see it.

The only law is that you can't sell it. And you can't make anything that would be illegal to possess anyway, like an automatic weapon (without registration) or a short barreled rifle (same), etc.

3D printing of real guns that actually work has been around for a while, it's called a CNC. Any CNC operator who feels like it can make a working 1911 for their personal use, no problem. And it will fire a hundred thousand rounds, not a hundred.
 

WBurchnall

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
2,622
Because banning guns has been soooooo effective (hi Washington DC, Chicago).

Well, yes. In those two places. In the majority of the world with gun control, it's been very effective. The problem is, gun control after 50+ years of selling guns to almost anyone who wanted one that can be inherited downwards a family line (if properly maintained), stolen or sold in private results in many guns on the legal and illegal markets that didn't original from a gun shop post when new gun control laws have taken effect. Gun control, would under the best of circumstances, take years to have an effect. If you look at places were gun control has been used for 50+ years, it's amazing how much better they are doing at us at preventing gun deaths.

The researchers found that the US has 88 guns per 100 people and 10 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people - more than any of the other 27 developed countries they studied.

On the other hand, Japan had only 0.6 guns per 100 people and .06 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, making it the country with both the fewest guns per capita and the fewest gun-related deaths.

Granted, the guy in the Navy-yard incident, who had talked to his veteran services to complain about voices he was hearing he claimed were from microwave signals coming from his upstairs neighbors ... at 3 different motels...), brought his guns legally. I think for people with mental health problems like that who are self-reporting themselves -- to the police and veteran affairs, should have be immediately blacklisted pending a clear psych eval, imo. However, that's gun control. What do you think? Mentally ill people hearing voices from electronics -- should they be prohibited via gun control from buying a gun? Or do we let them have guns and wait for a navy yard incident when the guy goes to literately stop the navy from performing those tests he toasters told him all about?

In the weeks before the attack on the Navy Yard, Alexis reported hearing voices and said that three people were sending vibrations through the ceiling to keep him from sleeping, police said Tuesday.

Police in Newport, R.I., said that Alexis called them to a Marriott hotel there on the morning of Aug. 7 and reported that he was being followed and was worried that the people were going to hurt him.

Alexis told police that the three talked to him through the walls, floor or ceiling at three hotels — two commercial hotels in Rhode Island and one on a naval base there. He told them that they used a microwave machine to send vibrations and keep him awake.
 

WBurchnall

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
2,622
I just want to know why Philly drivers are so terrible.

They tasted deep dish pizza and lost their will to live. Now, they are just trying to end their life via motor vehicle accident so their family can collect the insurance.
 
Top