Position: Support Status: Inactive
This bill amends the federal criminal code to broaden the definition of "firearm" to include any combination of parts designed and intended to be used to convert a device into a firearm and from which a firearm may be readily assembled.
Introduced March 1, 2017 by Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13] 24 cosponsors (24 D) including Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer
On July 31, 2018, U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik has issued a temporary restraining order stopping the release of downloadable blueprints for 3D-printed guns.
One day earlier, eight attorneys general, including Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, filed a lawsuit to block the federal government’s settlement with the company that makes schematic designs for guns available online. In addition, the attorneys general sought a restraining order city the safety risks posed by 3D-printed guns.
At this time, 3D-printed guns are untraceable because they lack serial numbers; undetectable because they lack metal; and highly dangerous because they are available to criminals who can afford a 3D-printer but cannot pass a background check.
Allowing unregulated 3D-printed small arms and allowing the commerce department rather than the state department to control 3D-printed files has a far-reaching impact on larger military arms including missiles and aerospace technology.
From Stockholm International Peace Research Institute:
“While the availability of 3D-printed gun files may thus only have a limited immediate impact on the proliferation of small arms, it should be considered which implications this approach may have for controls on 3D printing and the control of technical data more broadly, both legally and in terms of the signal it sends.”
“Export controls on the technical data required for the development, production, operation or repair of a controlled item to date provided the main regulatory measure on 3D printing. From an export controls perspective, the removal of such controls on technical data is a worrying development. While the impact may remain low in the area of small arms, if such rulings were to be extended to other areas, such as missile and aerospace technology, the impact could potentially be much more significant. Therefore, retaining controls on electronic transfers and sharing of technical data is an important part of export controls in a broader sense and especially in the context of increasing 3D printing and additive manufacturing capabilities.” [Emphasis Ceasefire Oregon.]