This is false. It is legal for non-prohibited persons to manufacture non-NFA firearms without a license, provided you do not do so "for sale or distribution." Your state may impose additional restrictions.
(I believe it is also legal for non-licensed individuals to manufacture non-machinegun NFA items by filing a form 1 and paying the tax, but don't quote me on that.)
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html#com...
L send you an email about your slandering me claiming that I am stating such things.
Learc83:
I have no intention of breaking the law. For you to post such slander online is outrageous. Let's hope we do not meet face to face.
My family has been a responsible gun owning family for more than 150 years.
I am appalled and angered that you simply assume that I would seek the most illegal form of weapon should I simply be able to print it.
Shall I assume that you have a propensity for rape if I were to know you were not a virgin?
My point in my original post was that should politicians who are abstracted from the understanding of how information exists will always err on the side on insane restrictions not based in the reality of how that information is actually disseminated or accessed.
You cannot outlaw knowledge, or intelligence.
However, in your case, it appears you can aschew it.
It would be libelous not slanderous, if it was actually defamatory.
Also you'll notice I said if you plan on manufacturing a firearm illegally you'll likely manufacture an automatic version--I never said you would do so.
>Shall I assume that you have a propensity for rape if I were to know you were not a virgin?
Since not being a virgin is not illegal, those are not analogous.
A better analogy would be something like: I assume you have a propensity for rape, if you have previously committed sexual battery.
"* a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name*
You published and broadcast on HN that you assumed that I would be manufacturing illegal weapons based on a comment that I had an STL for a part of a gun.
You said that you DO assume that if I am going to 3D print a part, that I would be producing the fully automatic version of a weapon.
This post ignores the fact that the STL I refer to is only a singular part of a device.
Further, your analogy DOES NOT work. As printing a gun part is NOT illegal. So you are saying that having an STL is the same as having previously commited sexual battery???
NO
IT DOES NOT.
My analogy works, yours is broken.
It is not legal to manufacture firearms unless you are licensed. The ATF will freak out and confiscate everything if they get wind of you building so much as a zip gun.
Also I assume that if the GP is planning on 3D printing an AR-15 once it's feasible (already illegal), he is planning on manufacturing a fully automatic version. That would be manufacturing a "machine gun" and would bring serious jail time.