3d printed guns Archives - Perfect 3D Printing Filament

University of Mississippi: How to Trace 3D Printed Guns for Forensic Analysis

Parker Riley Ball is a thesis student at the University of Mississippi, exploring some complex areas regarding 3D printing, outlined in ‘Development of a Dart-Mass Spectral Database for 3D Printed Firearm Polymers, and Airborne Mercury at Three Lakes in North Mississippi.’

The research study, centered around the uses of chemometric analysis, offers an interesting focus on weapons forensics, as Ball expounds on ways to collect data on 3D printed guns and analyze the forensic information, along with creating another ‘sampling’ device (unrelated to 3D printing) for measuring high levels of mercury in Grenada, Enid, and Sardis Lakes, all tributaries in Mississippi.

Ball discusses the ‘threat of 3D printed firearms’ at length, delving into a worldwide conversation that is controversial to say the least. His point in the thesis is that there is a need to track weapons, and 3D printed guns are currently manufactured and possessed completely off the grid—along with safeguarding features such as the ability to evade metal detectors—prompting the possibility that there may be legal necessity in the future to track such weapons and their ‘manufacturers.’ Amidst exploration of DART-MS, the study of 3D printed guns, and forensic research, Ball mainly performed data analysis and interpretation, with the rest left up to fellow graduate student, Oscar Black.

DART-MS stands for direct analysis in real time – mass spectrometry and allows for the collection of ‘mass spectra under ambient conditions.’ Samples can be taken quickly, and simply. And while this is already a well-known technique for taking samples, using them for 3D printed gun forensics is a novel concept.

“With a DART ion source, a gas, He or N2, passes through a discharge chamber where an electric current is applied to generate a glow discharge, producing excited neutral chemical species called metastables,” explains Ball. “A perforated electrode removes ions from the gas stream as it travels through a second chamber. In a third chamber, the gas is then heated, and the sample is ionized by reacting with the metastables and causing desorption.”

A schematic diagram of a DART ion system (Photo Credit: Dr. Chip Cody, as used in Ball’s Thesis Study)

The researchers can use DART with a spectrometer for pinpointing and identifying the unique makeup and pattern of each sample—in this case, a 3D printed polymer used to manufacture a weapon. Ball points out that the process does not harm a forensic sample in any way, meaning that evidence can be stored and explored further, as needed later in a trial. The DART-MS ‘fingerprint mass spectra’ also makes it useful in many other law enforcement applications like drug busts and other criminal activities requiring trace analysis.

A display including 30 of the plastic samples analyzed for this study.

As the researchers expanded their analysis efforts in conjunction with the DART-MS data, they were able to categorize samples by different polymers—followed by analysis of manufacturer and color. Ball emphasizes the importance of this work for law enforcement officials in the future as they could have greater luck in identifying crimes that are gun-related, requiring further evidence for trials and convictions. Samples were taken from 50 different types of 3D printing polymers, including PLA, ABS, PETG, nylon, and more.

While the second part of the study was not related to 3D printing, Ball was engaged in creating other analytical sampling devices, with the use of a Direct Mercury Analyzer. Find out more about that study and the mechanics of measuring mercury and toxicity levels here.

“The results from this study show strong potential for the classification and identification of unknown polymer evidence as the 3D-print polymer database continues to grow,” reports Ball in the conclusion of his thesis. Chemometric analysis of mass spectral data allowed for the successful classification of various 3D-print polymer samples, and thermal desorption techniques provided an even stronger basis for this classification. It is recommended that another full study be done in the future, with a focus on modifying the parameters used in the chemometric analysis of polymers for potentially stronger separation when generating PCA plots.”

Most of the 3D printing realm is uncharted territory, and as soon as the technology hit the mainstream, designers, engineers, and a multitude of creative users around the world were left to think up an infinite amount of ways to ‘change the world’ – and get in some trouble too. Weapons of course were high on the list for enthusiasts to take a stab at, whether in creating replicas for cosplay, creating gun designs and advocating, or bikers 3D printing guns in Australia to promote crime endeavors. It’s not likely that 3D printers are going to take over as the manufacturing technique of choice, but users are curious about what they can do, and weapons enthusiasts are often very passionate about their guns and different ways to construct, and enjoy them.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

Direct analysis of 3D-Print Polymer

Thermal Desorption unit coupled to DART source at the MS inlet

[Source / Images: Development of a Dart-Mass Spectral Database for 3D Printed Firearm Polymers, and Airborne Mercury at Three Lakes in North Mississippi]

3D Printing News Sliced: Sintratec, HP, 3D Systems, Renishaw

In the latest edition of the 3D Printing Industry news digest – Sliced, we have news about 3D printed spare parts, future of additive manufacturing in India, and 3D printed food. Read on to learn more about Sintratec, Mimaki, 3D Systems and Renishaw. Beyond borders Sintratec, a Swedish SLS printer manufacturer, has signed a distribution […]

A Look Into Some Movies That Have Used 3D Printed Props

Since the 1990’s 3D technology has gone hand in hand with the film spurned by the with the growth of special effects. CGI has become commonplace in movies and is used to create designs of characters, creatures, objects, explosions, planets, entire universes even. But movies are not just CGI. Props are an important part of filmmaking which help sets and even characters come to life. There is no doubt that the use of 3D printers in the film industry is becoming more promising: producers, filmmakers, propmakers and costume designers are lately utilizing 3D printers to save time and money while creating astonishing effects for us to enjoy.

Mixing real objects, accessories, and costumes with CGI is essential to get optimum results, but it means that studios and investors need more and more money, and making films has become very expensive. 3D printing can in these cases be used both to augment special effects, create inexpensive props, be used for stop motion and generally can be used to save costs.

During the last couple of years 3D printed props, models and costumes made their appearance in movies. One of these movies even won an Oscar last weekend for Best Costume Design while another won an Oscar for best special effects. Here are some of the most interesting uses of 3D printin in the movies:

First Man (2018)

Image provided by BigRep

First Man is a biographical drama film directed by Damien Chazelle and written by Josh Singer. The film is based on the book “First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong” by James R. Hansen. The film follows the years leading up to the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon in 1969, and to bring this to life, 3D printers were used.

First Man’s production designer Nathan Crowley came across a BigRep 3D printer printing a chair while strolling through the Brooklyn Navy Yard during the shoot for The Greatest Showman in the fall of 2016. He did not get to use a 3D printer for said movie, but he was sure he wanted to for his next movie.

Image provided by BigRep

For First Man, Crowley rented two BigRep One 3D printers to create an accurate scale replica of the Apollo 11 capsule and Saturn V rocket, along with other crucial props, in less than six months. Although the crew already had some experience with 3D printing, BigRep One was nothing compared to what they have used before, thus BigRep’s senior 3D printing specialist Michael David helped the crew with the installation and training. You can read more about it here.

Black Panther (2018)

Black Panther is a superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name. Produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, it tells the story about T’Challa who is crowned king of Wakanda following his father’s death, but his sovereignty is challenged by an adversary who plans to abandon the country’s isolationist policies and begin a global revolution. Black Panther has recently won an Oscar for Best Costume Design for Ruth Carter’s amazing work.

Photo: Kwaku Alston

The movie takes place in a technologically advanced environment with several futuristic gadgets, therefore, it was important that costumes reflected that aesthetic. Carter, in charge of the movie’s costume design, created a series of sketches, illustrations, and digital patterns. To bring them to life, Julia Koerner, an inter-disciplinary designer specialized in 3D printed wearables helped Carter. Koerner collaborated with Materialise, a Belgian 3D printing company, on creating a collection of cutting-edge accessories fit for Queen Ramonda played by actress Angela Bassett.

Jurassic World (2015)

From the classic Jurassic Park film series, Jurassic World is a science fiction adventure film directed by Colin Trevorrow and written by Derek Connolly. The movie takes place 22 years after the events of Jurassic Park, in the fictional Central American island of Isla Nublar, where a theme park of cloned dinosaurs has operated for nearly a decade.

Jurassic World got closer to reality thanks to 3D printing. The team used 3D scanning and 3D printing to create replicas of prehistoric artifacts by 3D scanning original bones and fossils and to help them create 3D printable models.

Source: 3D World Magazine Issue #182

Thanks to 3D printers, the team had the chance to print dinosaur skeletons. By doing some modification on their 3D files, they were able to create males, females, and adolescents. Additive manufacturing gave them a lot of freedom to adjust the design of dinosaurs to make them look as realistic as possible.

Chase Me (2015)

Chase Me is a 3D printed film created by the French digital artist Gilles-Alexandre Deschaud. The short film was entirely made from 3D printed parts. The story begins with a girl playing the ukulele as she walks through a magical forest. As she walks, her shadow evolves into a monster that chases her through the woods. Every frame of the film was first designed by the artist in CG and later processed into 3D prints.

This short animated film took a total of two years to make, ten months of nonstop 3D printing, four months of CG animation, and 2,500 3D printed pieces. The set and characters were printed in 100 micron resolution, and bigger pieces, like the tree in the forest, were printed in 22 individual parts and later assembled.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a space opera film produced, co-written and directed by J. J. Abrams. The Force Awakens is set 30 years after Return of the Jedi, the film follows Rey, Finn, and Poe Dameron’s search for Luke Skywalker and their fight alongside the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa and veterans of the Rebel Alliance, against Kylo Ren and the First Order, a successor to the Galactic Empire.

A lot of props and costumes have been 3D printed for this Star Wars movie and all of them were created under the supervision of practical special effects and costume design Michael Kaplan. The famous Stormtroopers helmet, large portions of the shiny chrome Stormtrooper armor, Kylo Ren’s red lightsaber, and some parts of C3PO have been manufactured using 3D printers. The main advantage of using 3D printers was that this manufacturing technique allowed the movie to get props quite quickly and with great accuracy.

ParaNorman (2012)

ParaNorman is a stop-motion animated comedy horror film produced by Laika and Directed by Sam Fell and Chris Butler. It is the first stop-motion film to use a 3D color printer to create character faces, and only the second to be shot in 3D. The film tells the story about Norman, a young boy who can communicate with ghosts, is given the task of ending a 300 year-old witch’s curse on his Massachusetts town.

The team that worked on this movie wanted to create various facial emotions for the same character. To do this, they used 3D printers to create all the faces with different facial emotions. Norman was then capable of 1.5 million expressions. For the 27 characters with 3D printed faces, the rapid-prototyping department output 31,000 parts, which they were stored and cataloged in a face library. One 27-second shot required 250 different faces for a single character, so each face was marked by tiny fissures where the components fit together. Later on, a “seam team” removes the fine lines in postproduction.

[Sources: ChaseMeFilm, Variety, PopularMechanics]

U.S. House of Representatives submits 3D Firearms Prohibition Act to congress

In the wake of the 3D printed gun debacle which reached its fever pitch in August 2018, U.S. Representative Frank Joseph Pallone Jr. has submitted a bill seeking to prohibit the digital, and physical, distribution of guns and gun parts across America. More specifically H. R. 7115, known as the “3D Firearms Prohibition Act” seeks […]

Misinformation, Panic, and 3D Printed Guns

In June 2018, Cody Wilson’s non-profit Defense Distributed and the U.S. State Department settled their long-running lawsuit over whether the government can block the Internet distribution of Defense Distributed’s digital blueprints for 3D printing a certain weapon and weapon parts. Since the settlement, state attorneys general and state and U.S. policy makers have been panicking, and Congress has pressured the White House to reverse the settlement, party fueled by misinformation and a basic misunderstanding of the facts.

There are two main issues: can or should the courts or legislatures take any action, and would whatever they do be effective? As an understanding of the facts will show, any court or legislative action cannot stop the dissemination of digital blueprints for 3D printed weapons or the actual 3D printing of weapons. At most, court rulings, laws, and regulations can provide a mechanism for punishing anyone who is caught violating them, or using 3D printed weapons for illegal purposes.

Posting and Re-Posting

In December 2012, Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed posted on the Internet the 3D printable digital blueprints for the “Liberator” pistol, a lower receiver for an AR-15 rifle, an AR-15 magazine, and a trigger guard and grips, all made of plastic. They were downloaded an unknown number of times before the State Department sent its 2013 letter to Defense Distributed, demanding that the digital blueprints be taken down. The blueprints were then downloaded 100,000 times in the 3 days between the government’s demand and the day Wilson took them down.

The June 2018 settlement allowed Defense Distributed to re-post the digital blueprints on August 1, but they reappeared on the Internet on July 27, 2018 and were quickly downloaded at least 2500 times. Defense Distributed took them down again after several States filed a lawsuit against the State Department on July 30, 2018, but they are available today at www.CodeIsFreeSpeech.com, which has been widely reported by the media . The Pennsylvania Attorney General wrongly reported that the 3D printable blueprints blocked by the State Department are for entire AR-15 rifles. The barrel and other parts of such weapons have not been 3D printed and must be made of metal.

The 2013 Ban

The government forced the Defense Distributed takedown under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which were designed to prevent the spread of weapons of war. The government eventually concluded that the weapon and components that can be 3D printed from Defense Distributed’s digital blueprints do not fall within the ITAR and allowed distribution of the blueprints to resume. If the case had not settled and had gone to trial, the court probably would have reached the same conclusion. Thus, reversing the settlement, as some people urge, probably is not supported by existing law.

What Was Actually Banned?

A closer look at the banned Defense Distributed digital blueprints shows why the government decided they are not for printing weapons of war. The only complete weapon covered by the 3D printable banned blueprints, dubbed “the Liberator,” is a crude, single-shot, .38 caliber, plastic weapon. Anyone who used it in war would lose quickly, and probably make the ultimate sacrifice. It was printed on a 3D printer that cost about $25,000 new (3D printers range in price from a few hundred dollars to $5 million), which Cody Wilson bought used on eBay for about $8000. Cody Wilson’s Liberator was not undetectable; it contained a metal firing pin and a hunk of metal. Anyone who 3D prints the Liberator from the Defense Distributed blueprints could omit the hunk of metal, but probably not the metal firing pin.

Another banned Defense Distributed digital blueprint was for a plastic AR-15 lower receiver. This blueprint was for only a component of such a weapon, not for a complete AR-15 rifle. The government acknowledged in the settlement that non-automatic firearms up to .50 caliber (which do not include AR-15s) are not inherently military equipment, and therefore are not covered by ITAR. This bell will be difficult for the government to un-ring, and is a major obstacle to reversing the settlement, especially because this digital blueprint is for only part of the weapon.

In January 2013 Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed 3D printed a 30-round magazine for an AR-15 rifle. After Defense Distributed posted the digital blueprints on its website in 2012, they were downloaded over 2000 times in 6 days. The digital blueprints for this component were covered by the 2013 ban.

The 2013 State Department takedown order also banned digital blueprints sold with a $1500 CNC (computer numerical control) router called the Ghost Runner. This machine is not a 3D printer. Although it was specifically designed for making untraceable metal lower receivers for AR weapons, the Ghost Runner can make any kind of part, not just gun parts. For this reason, the machine itself was not covered by the ban. But because it was marketed to make ghost gun (i.e., untraceable) parts and came with a USB drive containing the digital blueprints for the Liberator and AR-15 lower receiver and magazine, those digital blueprints were included in the 2013 ban. About 6000 of these machines have been sold.

Since the 2013 ban, Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed have developed other digital blueprints for weapons, not all of which are 3D printable in their present form. The government settlement allows them to be published on the Internet.

Cody Was Never Alone

Although he has received the lion’s share of media attention, Cody Wilson is not the only person to 3D print plastic guns or AR-15 lower receivers, or to post digital blueprints for such weapons and components on the Internet. Digital blueprints for many different 3D printed weapons, components, and accessories have been available on the World Wide Web and the Dark Web, and have been widely disseminated, since 2012.

Because Defense Distributed’s digital blueprints have been in wide circulation since 2012, attempting to ban them would be both futile and impossible today, regardless of any court decisions, laws, and regulations. More importantly, Defense Distributed’s 3D printed weapon, components, and accessories are a drop in a bucket that many people other than Cody Wilson have been filling since 2012.

3D printed plastic weapons and components have come a long way since the Liberator, as have 3D printed silencers (both plastic and metal), ammunition, and bump-fire stocks, made by many people other than Cody Wilson. I survey such weapons, components, and accessories in my Law Enforcement Learning course on 3D printed weapons (sorry, you need a badge to take the course). They are much more advanced than the Liberator and digital blueprints for many of them have been available on the Internet for years.

Are These Weapons Really Undetectable?

In the U.S., it is legal to make guns at home, as long as they are detectable. Thus, as long as Defense Distributed’s (or anyone else’s) digital blueprints call for at least some metal parts, they are not fundamentally different from the designs or blueprints for similar weapons made by traditional manufacturing methods.

All of the known plastic weapons 3D printed to date, including the Liberator, are detectable because they include one or more metal parts (usually at least the firing pin), and of course conventional ammunition is detectable. Digital blueprints for these weapons are also available on the Dark Web, which is 10-20 times larger than the World Wide Web. Most importantly, anyone who can use 3D design software can make and disseminate his or her own digital blueprints for weapons, and they will probably build upon the work that others have done in this area.

Also, whether 3D printed plastic weapons are really undetectable is open for debate. TSA says “3D-printed guns and firearm components have been in circulation for years and have been found on passengers trying to board commercial flights.” Our “officers are trained and on the lookout for 3D guns. . . . We have proven detection capabilities and screening protocols in place.” To date, TSA has detected two 3D printed guns and two 3D printed firearm components.

Even if Defense Distributed’s digital blueprints are used to make undetectable weapons, this is already illegal under the Undetectable Firearms Act. Lawsuits and new laws or regulations will not prevent criminals from making undetectable weapons, but provide a mechanism for punishing them if they are caught doing so.

Away From Control

The Pennsylvania Attorney General recently said of Defense Distributed’s re-posting of the digital blueprints:

Left unchecked, Americans would be able to download a wide range of actual, working guns, including AR-15s, and 3D print their own guns – without serial numbers and without being subjected to the background check system for gun sales currently in place under federal and state law through licensed firearms dealers.

This statement is partly true, except the incorrect suggestion that complete weapons (including AR-15s) can be 3D printed in plastic, or that downloading digital blueprints for weapons and 3D printing them can be checked. Although Defense Distributed developed CAD files for AR-15 rifles, they are not 3D printable files and making AR-15 rifles by traditional methods is not illegal.

Neither the creation nor dissemination of 3D printable weapons blueprints, and the 3D printing of weapons, can be stopped. This is because 3D printers democratize the manufacturing of almost anything “away from control,” which is a concept on which I have written and spoken extensively, both in my book, 3D Printing Will Rock the World, and elsewhere. “Away from control” means making things without anyone knowing about it or being able to control it. Because of the combination of the Internet and 3D printing’s democratization of manufacturing away from control, the creation and dissemination of digital blueprints for weapons and the 3D printing of guns, components, and accessories can be made illegal, but cannot be stopped (just as murder is illegal but laws can’t stop it from happening).

In this regard, Cody Wilson was almost correct when he said that on August 1, 2018 “the age of the downloadable gun formally begins.” In fact, that Age began in 2012 and has been flourishing independently of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed without much media attention. The Washington State attorney general stated in the Complaint in the Seattle lawsuit that after 3D printed weapons blueprints are online, the “bell cannot be un-rung.” That bell rang in 2012 and has been ringing ever since.

Attorneys General in a Panic

On July 30, the Washington State attorney general filed a federal lawsuit to block the State Department from allowing Defense Distributed to release its digital blueprints for the Liberator and the weapons parts described above. Several other states and the District of Columbia joined in the lawsuit.

On July 31, 2018, Judge Robert Lasnik of the federal district court in Seattle granted a restraining order temporarily barring the release of the digital blueprints. On August 27 the court issued a preliminary injunction extending that order until there is a trial in the case. However, that order is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Washington state attorney general Bob Ferguson called the temporary restraining order “a complete, total victory.” He was wrong for several reasons. That order, and the preliminary injunction, are not based on the merits of the case. At the trial, the Plaintiff States could still lose, or the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could reverse the injunction long before then.

More importantly and aside from legalities, the digital blueprints for the Liberator and AR-15 lower receiver that started it all back in 2012 have been downloaded well over 100,000 times and surely have been widely shared. Those digital blueprints were posted on the Defense Distributed website on July 27, 2018 and were downloaded an unknown number of times. Those downloads cannot be recalled and their proliferation cannot be limited or stopped. The Defense Distributed 3D printable blueprints and non-3D printable CAD files are also currently available on other sites. Moreover, the lawsuit and the injunction have no effect on the many other 3D printed guns, components, accessories, and blueprints that have been posted, shared, and disseminated since 2012.

On July 29, Pennsylvania Attorney General Shapiro filed a similar lawsuit in Philadelphia federal court. Defense Distributed agreed not to disseminate the digital blueprints in Pennsylvania, pending a formal court hearing. Due to the nature of the Internet, this is like agreeing that clouds will not pass over the state. This lawsuit will provide a forum for Defense Distributed to test not only the applicability of the First and Second Amendments, but also the Constitutionality of the Pennsylvania laws asserted against Defense Distributed. In November 2013, Philadelphia made it illegal to make or own 3D printed guns.

Legal Mumbo Jumbo

The August 27 preliminary injunction order is a great example of federal legal procedure mumbo jumbo being used either to pull the wool over a court’s eyes, or to deal with a political hot potato. For example, Judge Lasnik said in the August 27 preliminary injunction order:

“Forcing the federal defendants [the State Department] to evaluate the effect of the proposed delisting [the State Department’s alleged removal of the Defense Distributed digital blueprints from the U.S. Munitions List] on world peace, national security, and the foreign policy of the United States . . . may also prompt a reconsideration of the decision to remove the CAD files from the USML.”

No one can seriously contend that the Liberator is a weapon of war and the States face an uphill battle to prove that AR-15s are military equipment under current law. More importantly, anyone who believes the Defense Distributed digital blueprints are a threat to world peace, national security, and foreign policy is either misinformed or bowing to political pressure. This judge took the safe route by issuing the injunction. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will now need to make the hard decision.

Lawsuits are Swords with Two Edges

Unless these lawsuits are settled, they will eventually go to trial, and could have consequences unintended by the States that filed them. The courts will probably conclude that there is no legal basis under federal law for blocking the distribution of the digital blueprints on a nationwide basis.

The lawsuit also contains a Tenth Amendment argument (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”). The Court will probably conclude that the States are free to enact any laws they wish, as long as they don’t conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and that the federal government is free to decide where ITAR does and does not apply.

More importantly, the settlement between Defense Distributed and the government prevented the court in that case from addressing the thorny issue of whether blocking the distribution of the blueprints violated the First and Second Amendments. The newly filed lawsuits give Defense Distributed and the pro-guns lobby a forum for having these issues decided, possibly in their favor. My money is on Defense Distributed. In fact, the Seattle judge seemed to agree when it said in the preliminary injunction order:

The Court declines to wade through these issues based on the limited record before it and instead presumes that the private defendants have a First Amendment right to disseminate the CAD files.

After the courts work through all of the procedural mumbo jumbo and the First, Second, and Tenth Amendment arguments, they will probably conclude either that the State Department had the authority to settle the lawsuit and to allow the Defense Distributed digital blueprints to be re-posted, and that there is no legal and Constitutional basis to restrict the dissemination of these 3D printable weapons blueprints, or the 3D printing of this weapon or components.

Presidential Tweet and Possible New Federal Laws

On July 31, President Trump tweeted that allowing the distribution to resume “doesn’t seem to make much sense,” suggesting that he might instruct the State Department to reverse the settlement. However, the President can’t make ITAR apply if it does not.

U.S. Senators Edward Markey (D-Mass) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) submitted a bill to block the online dissemination of 3D printable digital blueprints. If enacted, this legislation will probably be tested under the First and Second Amendments, but would be inherently unenforceable for the reasons I discuss.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said “3D printers are a miraculous technology that has the potential to revolutionize manufacturing, but we need to make sure they are not being used to make deadly, undetectable weapons.” Senator Schumer is correct: 3D printers are revolutionizing manufacturing and creating jobs. But he is wrong (as are Senators Markey and Blumenthal) that it is possible to prevent 3D printers from making guns, although it could me made illegal to do so (the Constitutionality of such a law would be a separate question). He was also wrong when he said that “This online site shows you, how at your home, with a simple 3D printer, you can make a plastic AR-15, an AR-10, a very dangerous semi-automatic assault-style weapons out of plastic in your own basement.” Only an AR-15 lower receiver can be 3D printed in plastic, with a home printer.

Conclusion

Any efforts by the States or the federal government to prevent Defense Distributed’s digital blueprints from being further disseminated are probably not good uses of resources because the designs are easily duplicated, are available from other sources, and are less sophisticated than other 3D printed weapons, components, and accessories, and their digital blueprints, which are available on the Internet. It is also impossible to prevent a 3D printer from printing a weapon. As attorney Kelsey Wilbanks recently wrote “obtaining the digital instructions to print and assemble an undetectable and untraceable 3D printed gun will probably soon be as simple as ordering and assembling home furniture.” In other words, the cat can’t be put back in the bag.

John Hornick was a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of the Finnegan IP law firm (one of the largest IP firms in the world) for 25 years. John founded Finnegan’s 3D Printing Working Group, frequently speaks and writes on 3D printing, and is recognized as a thought leader in this space. He is the author of the book, 3D Printing Will Rock the World, which won a Silver Award from the Nonfiction Authors Association, has been called a “must-read” offering “rare insight into how 3D printing is redefining what can be designed and manufactured,” and was selected for the U.S. Special Operations Command’s 2017 Reading List (think Delta Force and Navy Seals) in the Disruptive Technology Category https://jsou.libguides.com/readinglists. His articles and videos have been widely published. He was the only IP attorney selected by the U.S. Comptroller General Forum on Additive Manufacturing (which was the basis of a report to Congress). John has served as a juror for the International Additive Manufacturing Award. John also educates the law enforcement community on 3D printing-related risks and benefits. The opinions expressed in this article are solely his own.

3D Printing News Briefs: August 10, 2018

We’ve got some business news to start things off with in today’s 3D Printing News Briefs, followed by a little research and a really cool 3D printed costume. The Department of Defense has awarded a contract to Contour Crafting, and Sutrue is celebrating its tenth anniversary. Facebook has made the decision to ban blueprints for 3D printed guns, and a Siggraph paper takes an in-depth look into near-eye displays. Finally, several companies helped the non-profit organization Magic Wheelchair make a really cool 3D printed wheelchair costume for a big Star Wars fan.

Contour Crafting Receives Department of Defense Contract

One of the first methods of large-scale 3D printing, Contour Crafting, uses large but lightweight robotic 3D printers, which can quickly put down layers of building material to rapidly create entire buildings onsite in just days. The California-based corporation itself is on a mission to commercialize disruptive construction technologies, and we recently learned that the US Department of Defense (DoD) has awarded Contour Crafting a $3 million research and development contract to build a concrete 3D printer for the purposes of building construction for disaster relief.

According to the company’s website , “Effective 25 JUL 2018, the Department of Defense has awarded Contour Crafting Corporation with a Rapid Innovation Fund contract in the domain of large and construction scale 3D printing. The outcome of this funded R&D program is expected to be a technology which, among other applications, will effectively respond to disaster relief situations with expedient, safe and sustainable structures and buildings.”

This information confirms that the DoD is not putting all of its eggs into one basket, so to speak, and is seeking outside help for its construction 3D printing goals.

Sutrue Celebrates Ten Years

Medical device startup Sutrue first started working on a 3D printed suture stitching device to help prevent needle stick injuries back in 2014, and became the first company to successfully 3D print a suture device. But Sutrue’s story actually began back in August of 2008, when its founder Alex Berry was stuck at home with a broken ankle and watched a documentary that provided some insight into robotic suturing. In an effort to keep busy during his recovery, Berry, who had some basic CAD knowledge, got to work.

After moving to the UK, Berry officially started Sutrue in 2012, meeting some influential people along the way who helped him get closer to achieving his goal of creating a 3D printed suture device. The startup completed a £30,000 crowdfunding campaign in 2014, submitted another patent, developed a few mutually beneficial relationships with other companies, and secured further funding for continued device development. Now, Sutrue is celebrating the 10th anniversary of Berry’s initial idea.

The startup wrote in a post, “It’s been ten years of ups and downs, filled with much uncertainty particularly in the first five years in which Berry didn’t even know for sure that the device would work. He has maintained the progression of the device through having a healthy dose of insanity, extreme resourcefulness, and an inquiring and problem-solving mind. He’s gone against many societal norms to have created two working prototypes of his automated suturing device – the robotic and the handheld, but as the route to market becomes closer and closer, he’s glad to have fought against the odds to see the project through to completion.”

Facebook Bans 3D Printed Gun Blueprints

Gun with 3D printed parts. [Image: CNET]

There’s been an increased amount of conversation on the topic of 3D printed guns recently, after news broke of a settlement between the US State Department and Texas open source 3D printed gun designer Defense Distributed, run by Cody Wilson. The settlement states that Wilson and his non-profit organization can publish files, plans, and 3D drawings of guns in any form, and are also exempted from export restrictions; additionally, the government will be paying nearly $40,000 of Wilson’s legal fees. This means that people who weren’t legally able to purchase firearms before, such as felons and domestic abusers, can 3D print their own guns without serial numbers. As you can imagine, many are not happy with this decision. This week, Facebook, the world’s largest social network, said that it will ban any websites that host and share blueprints of 3D printed guns, though the designs have already been available online for years.

According to BuzzFeed News, a Facebook spokesperson said, “Sharing instructions on how to print firearms using 3D printers is not allowed under our Community Standards. In line with our policies, we are removing this content from Facebook.”

MSN reports that Facebook did not “immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the Ghost Gunner” 3D printed gun.

Siggraph Paper on Optical Design for Augmented Reality Near Eye Displays

This year’s annual conference on computer graphics, SIGGRAPH 2018, starts this Sunday, August 12th, in Vancouver. One of the papers published for the conference, titled “Steerable application-adaptive near eye displays,” discusses see-through near eye displays (NED), which are currently being used in the Hololens, among other things. According to the Stanford Computational Imaging Lab, most NEDs work by using a stereoscopic image pair to optically drive the visual system’s vergence state to “arbitrary distances,” but drives the focus (accommodation) state towards a fixed distance.

The technology is a bit of a long shot, due to people getting motion sickness or their eyes getting tired, but if we can get it to work, I bet every movie theatre in the world will employ it.

The abstract of the paper reads, “The design challenges of see-through near-eye displays can be mitigated by specializing an augmented reality device for a particular application. We present a novel optical design for augmented reality near-eye displays exploiting 3D stereolithography printing techniques to achieve similar characteristics to progressive prescription binoculars. We propose to manufacture inter-changeable optical components using 3D printing, leading to arbitrary shaped static projection screen surfaces that are adaptive to the targeted applications. We identify a computational optical design methodology to generate various optical components accordingly, leading to small compute and power demands. To this end, we introduce our augmented reality prototype with a moderate form-factor, large field of view. We have also presented that our prototype is promising high resolutions for a foveation technique using a moving lens in front of a projection system. We believe our display technique provides a gate-way to application-adaptive, easily replicable, customizable, and cost-effective near-eye display designs.”

Co-authors of the paper are NVIDIA Corporation‘s Kishore Rathinavel, Praneeth Chakravarthula, Kaan Akşit, Josef Spjut, Ben Boudaoud, Turner Whitted, David Luebke, and Henry Fuchs from UNC Chapel Hill.

3D Printed Star Wars Wheelchair Costume

Here’s something fun and heartwarming to kick off your weekend – non-profit organization Magic Wheelchair, which makes free, bespoke wheelchair costumes for kids, created a 3D printed Poe Dameron X-Wing Fighter wheelchair costume for a 13-year-old, wheelchair-bound Star Wars fan named Vedant Singhania to wear at last month’s Comic-Con International. Project partners included Pixologic, which used its ZBrush digital sculpting software to provide the design and modeling work, and Dangling Carrot Creative, which used the high print speeds of the Massivit 1800 3D printer to make 50 separate costume pieces in a little over two weeks. Massivit also donated 3D printing materials, and Monster City Studios assembled the large wheelchair costume.

“We connected with Magic Wheelchair because we knew our technology and modelling expertise could assist them with the fantastic work they are doing for children in wheelchairs,” said Pixologic’s 3D Product Development Manager Paul Gaboury. “After we designed the costume, Dangling Carrot Creative was the final piece to the puzzle. The company allowed us to 3D print life-size to help remove the need for molds or casting which saves substantial time and money.”

Discuss these stories, and other 3D printing topics, at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts in the Facebook comments below.

3D Printed Guns: Bad People can go on Instagram and get an Instagun

Lawmakers speak out against 3D printed guns with Senator Richard Blumenthal saying that “these ghost guns are the new wave of American gun violence.” Senator Edward Markey says that “Donald Trump would be responsible for every 3D Printed AR 15 roaming the streets of our country.” Also, he stated, “Beginning tonight at 12:01 AM, bad people can go on Instagram and get an Instagun.” ChuckSchumerr also says that the administration is “enslaved by the NRA.” One gets the impression that these guys are worried about “The Purge.”

We’ve gone from being a $12 billion High tech industry growing at a 30% clip, saving children, repairing pets, providing jobs and being the future of all the things to now being a political football. I’ve worried about this before but this 3D printed gun backlash is actually happening. Lets recap for a moment. We’ve spoken about this topic before and are caught between bringing realism to 3D printed guns and popularizing this even more.

It has always been legal in the United States to make your own homebrew guns 3D printed, or made with whatever the technology. Ghost guns could always be made and 3D printed ghost guns could have been made for 30 years now. What so far over the past 30 years have been the cases when 3D printed ghost guns have been used for crime? What percentage of gun crimes is committed by homemade ghost guns?

Making DIY guns at home has been legal for decades. If you want to sell your gun, then you have to apply to become a gun manufacturer or distributor and your gun has to have a serial number. A group of people looking for controversy did not do this. They were invited on all the talk shows and got more money to 3D print their guns. The 3D printed gun was one guy’s idea but the media attention made it a reality. It is therefore their fault once someone gets killed. By making this a self-fulfilling prophecy and popularizing it they are making it a reality. Meanwhile, the group that first 3D printed guns is using CNC machines to make guns.

Instagun t-Shirt.

A lawsuit gets settled and immediately lawmakers spring into action to defend us from 3D printed guns. The entire media sees this as a new threat. Do none of them realise that ghost guns or 3D printed guns could have been possible for decades?

Meanwhile in these decades have crimes been committed with them? Nope. Criminals have enough guns already and can get them via traditional means. Also, other methods of manufacturing are better than 3D printing for this application.

So now lawmakers are going to spring into action to? Let me guess: implement DRM for 3D Printing as a solution. The result is that we will get separate more restrictive laws for 3D printing in the United States than for other manufacturing technologies. This can only hamper and restrict 3D printing in the United States. By demonizing 3D printing US politicians have undergone a collective failure to think things through today. We had similar freakouts in Australia and other countries before leading to bans of 3D guns but this one may have consequences unlike other things with ghost guns that just blew over.

The US is one of the leading countries in 3D printing and stands to benefit significantly from it. The US government has spent many millions over the years commercializing several 3D printing technologies that are being used for satellites, aircraft, automobiles, medical applications and in industry. With more legislation aimed just at curtailing 3D printing the US risks undoing its earlier efforts. 3D Printing is being put at a disadvantage when compared to other technologies. The US may through this hoopla harm and even retard its growth in 3D printing. US technological leadership will crumble if the US 3D printing industry is hindered uniquely.

By popularizing this issue 3D printing is coming in a negative light. Rather than putting 3D Printers in classrooms, questions will be asked and kids will get less access to 3D printers. US printers will be more expensive and less capable than others because they will need to have DRM. What’s more DRM will not be a workable solution for companies making secret things and new inventions. These companies, therefore, will no longer buy US 3D printers. Any move towards DRM for 3D printing will do irreparable harm to the US portion of the 3D printing industry while other countries will use this to their advantage.

FDM, SLA, Powder bed fusion and BinderJet are US inventions. The US has done a lot of the heavy lifting to commercialize 3D printing and relies on it for next-generation aircraft and other technologies. Now through one week of media fear mongering the US could put itself out of the 3D printing race. Short-term political goals are being placed ahead of the long-term strategic goals of the country.

Could people use the internet to exchange gun plans? Could people use the internet to plot crime? Of course, they could. But, in retrospect, the fear could be real but I think on the whole its been good for the US to have lead the way in building and rolling out the internet globally. Many billions of good.

Now an impactful technology is being smothered and restricted, in the US alone because of lobbyists and collusion. Some big content company wants DRM to restrict 3D printing. Why because we’ll print out their little puppets? Nope, because they’re afraid we’ll print out our own creations. Other politicians want to fan the flames of a problem that they will then “solve.” No one solves anything but oh it is a beautiful democracy theater for us to watch. Being so close to this thing, caring and knowing how it really works makes me worry about how they decide all the other things that I don’t know about.

We Have to Take a Stand on 3D Printed Guns

We as a 3D Printing community to take a stand on 3D printed guns.

I don’t know where you stand politically on the gun debate, nor do I care. We must as a 3D printing industry collectively respond to the issue of getting dragged into the gun debate. We are being collectively smeared and our technology may be curtailed in its growth because of it.

Through politicians, lobbyists and rabble-rousers our industry is being politicized. Slowly but surely they will try to tear us asunder, separating us. What we need to keep in mind is that they don’t care about us or our industry. They have ulterior motives meant to lead the world towards their way of thinking. They don’t care what they say or do as long as their team wins. We should be mindful of much more powerful forces than we.

You can already make guns in the US, you just need a license to distribute guns. The essential part of the “homebrew” gun was already perfectly possible. If they really wanted to 3D print guns they could have already done this. Instead, they wanted to 3D print attention and everyone fell for it. They went looking for a law suit to prolong the window of attention on them.

The gun people sued the government and the government settled. Now one political arm is settling while the other clamours for a legal solution. It seems like the politicians have found a way for both of them to win while they solve nothing for any of us.

We’ve become a political football not through our own doing but through circumstance. On the upside, we sold over a million 3D printers before one ended up in the hands of a bad guy. Media savvy, this person interjected themselves into America’s gun debate. He became popular and sold many magazines while making comparatively few. The constant attention meant that more people talked about him.

The 3D printed gun was created by the media. It is they who I will blame once the first person dies because of this.

The media made the 3D printed gun, Cody just had the idea for it.

What if I told you that I could make any object out of glass, what would you say? What if I got to go to all the major TV stations to tell my glass blowing story? Nothing would happen. But, what if people kept talking about how I could blow “ghost guns” out of glass? Then eventually if the media gave me enough attention, I’d get enough money and supporters to make glass blown ghost guns happen. What is occurring is that media attention has created a self-fulfilling prophecy. Meanwhile, the current sharing and making of guns by the group advocating it is done using a CNC mill. The 3D printing element is just for marketing.

Making guns at home has been possible with CNC and other tools for many years. Indeed in any modern machine shop, one can find a myriad of tools much better suited to making guns than 3D printers are. Metal guns made with lathes and the like will outperform 3D printed ones by a significant margin.

The designs that are being made and distributed now are not optimized for 3D printing. Clearly, this is not being done by people who are familiar with the technology. The material choices and way they deal with certain engineering choices shows poor judgement and little 3D printing and engineering skill. It is at least reassuring that no one from our community seems to be involved. Instead, it is a group that wishes to become popular through exploiting high interest in the gun debate. This is actually very similar to how (INSERT SOMETHING ANYTHING HERE) is being politicized.

What is happening here is that certain legislators and the companies that they represent would like to implement DRM for 3D printing and restrict the technology. They periodically dig up the same lobbyist talking points: product safety, intellectual property, product liability etc. This lobbying and the same talking points are being spread in the US and EU.

It seems that there are people who wish to restrict the technology through specific legislation aimed at curtailing 3D printing.

This is inane. There is no need for separate safety, IP or liability law for 3D printing. It would be like having different free speech laws for things written by pencil from those written by pen. 3D printing is a technology for making things and should not be curtailed by laws throttling innovation.

The gun boogyman was weaned, popularized and created by the media and is now being used by lobbyists to introduce new legislation to hold back 3D printing.

3D printing democratizes innovation, production and competition. It would seem that there are people who are so afraid of this that they wish to legislate problems for 3D printing as a technology.

People have been trying since 2013 to present DRM as the solution for 3D printed guns.

Using DRM for 3D printers would be akin to installing an app on everyone’s Google Drive or Microsoft Word to monitor for the typing of illegal phrases. Its easy to see where this in a design and engineering context could lead to problems.

DRM for 3D printing will not work because one could always circumvent it by making your own 3D printer without DRM.

In fact, DRM for 3D printers may very well be illegal in the EU, with certain files, especially medical ones and companies deploying a DRM tool that would take patient or personal data out of the EU or handle it incorrectly could be liable for significant fines under EU privacy laws.

On the one hand, you’re saying that we can print guns, but you’re simultaneously saying that adding some chip to every printer is going to somehow stop us?

What if I wanted to make a gun-like shape on a printer? Such as a tube, am I going to be stopped in creating this?

What if using the design freedom of 3D printing I was to make a supremely un-gunlike shape that worked as a gun? Would that be possible? Well…more than possible, along with speed, that is kind of the point of our technology.

There is nothing intrinsically new or particularly dangerous about 3D printed guns. The biggest threat at the moment is to the operator.

There are approximately 270 million guns in the US, every single one of them more dangerous and a better weapon than the 3D printed guns of now.

Having said that, if we talk about it long enough and people keep giving these guys money then they’ll get there eventually. With 3D printing, given enough eyeballs all things are shallow.

Image Creative Commons Attribution Endlesspics.