Keegan Hamilton 3D-Printed a Glock to See How Far Homemade Guns Have Come

The first-ever shooting competition exclusively for home-assembled firearms—or so-called “ghost guns”—was held in late June at a Florida gun range... organized by a digital gun building collective called Are We Cool Yet? or AWCY, a group that has been pushing the envelope of what’s possible with 3D-printed arms... VICE News correspondent Keegan Hamilton decided to enter the shooting contest in Florida—and build his own ghost gun, a 9mm Glock 19 pistol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4dBuPJ9p7A

Ah, yes, media whore and favorite of low information gunowners Rob Pincus collaborating with anti-gun magazine Vice to produce an segment on 3-D printed guns combined with a group of 3-d printed gun makers getting together to hold a match just for home made guns. I understand that the people involved were trying to normalize 3-D printed guns and make the point that the government could never control them, but I think discretion might be better in this case. When we have to deal with serialized barrels and uppers and slides, we can thank these people. I also saw a fair number of gun safety violations, but that's for another thread. On another note I was surprised to see Rob Pincus on a range with a timer. It was like seeing a vampire going out in sunlight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed L

When we have to deal with serialized barrels and uppers and slides, we can thank these people.

---

How would that work, legally? Without a massive change in the senate getting anything passed at the federal level seems unlikely.

I guess I wouldn't be surprised to see a group of states like, say, California, New York, Washington, etc, pass something at the state level that would require serialized slides, barrels, etc. and regulating them like firearms. Didn't New York recently pass yet another piece of bullshit that requires a (state licensed?) gunsmith to change any parts? Seems like they're already on the way there.

Is there anything to stop some states from creating a whole new "regulated firearms component" category that covers barrels and slides like it does receivers? What's the legal standing there? Seems like it's already settled constitutional law that the GCA 68 requirement for guns have to have a serial number is legal. What's to distinguish federal law that only requires it on one part from state law that requires it on multiple? Anything at all?

If not, and enough states do it, the manufacturers might start serializing everything just to not have to deal with two different domestic markets. I mean, right now nobody bats at eye at getting a serialized OEM Glock barrel from Brownells. Have that shipped to a state like Arizona and the numbers mean less than nothing. Carry it over the state line into California and it's a different story.

In order to regulate barrels and slides, 18 U.S.C. sec. 921 would have to be amended, or another statute would have to be passed. However, if "ghost guns" can be sufficiently vilified in the media, then perhaps enough Republicans In Name Only would be willing to make that happen.

As the video shows, making a "ghost gun" is not as simple as many would have you believe. It may be possible to build one in 1/2 hour from an 80% frame, but only after building others which took much more time and involved a few mistakes. Even skilled members of this forum have had failures building from 80% frames.

3D printing is also not as simple or easy as it is portrayed. The least expensive 3D printers use polymers which would soften if left in a hot car. Using better polymers requires more expensive printers. As the video showed, significant work is required after printing, and even some serious 3D printing hobbyists has problems with their guns.

Pincus makes the argument that "freedom is not safe." I would argue that the world is not safe, and freedom provides the greatest overall safety. Recall Ben Franklin's comments about those who would trade freedom for safety.

"In order to regulate barrels and slides, 18 U.S.C. sec. 921 would have to be amended, or another statute would have to be passed."

Or the ATF could change their minds. It's not like they haven't before. And with the NRAs help too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BillSWPA

In order to regulate barrels and slides, 18 U.S.C. sec. 921 would have to be amended, or another statute would have to be passed. However, if "ghost guns" can be sufficiently vilified in the media, then perhaps enough Republicans In Name Only would be willing to make that happen.

As the video shows, making a "ghost gun" is not as simple as many would have you believe. It may be possible to build one in 1/2 hour from an 80% frame, but only after building others which took much more time and involved a few mistakes. Even skilled members of this forum have had failures building from 80% frames.

3D printing is also not as simple or easy as it is portrayed. The least expensive 3D printers use polymers which would soften if left in a hot car. Using better polymers requires more expensive printers. As the video showed, significant work is required after printing, and even some serious 3D printing hobbyists has problems with their guns.

Pincus makes the argument that "freedom is not safe." I would argue that the world is not safe, and freedom provides the greatest overall safety. Recall Ben Franklin's comments about those who would trade freedom for safety.

---

Maybe, maybe not.

https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-rowold

Are you familiar with United States v. Rowold, 429 F. Supp. 3d 469 (N.D. Ohio 2019). ?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...47475.amp.html

Quote:

---

As O'Kelly sees it, the ATF has been deliberately misinterpreting a key gun control regulation for decades because officials fear that following the letter of the law would allow criminals to build AR-15s and other firearms piece by piece with unregulated parts.

He said he voiced his concerns to an ATF official two decades ago, but was rebuffed.

Now, however, his view is gaining traction in courtrooms around the country.

In December, a federal judge in Ohio dismissed weapons-related charges against two men after O'Kelly testified that the AR-15 part at issue in their case was not subject to federal law or regulation.

US District Court Judge James G. Carr for the Northern District of Ohio called the ATF's long-standing interpretation of the regulation "unreasonable and legally unacceptable."

This key part, according to the Gun Control Act, was referred to as "the frame or receiver," which is, generally speaking, the body of a firearm in the area surrounding the trigger.

An accompanying federal regulation provided a precise, highly technical definition:

"That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel."

The problem -- and this is where O'Kelly comes in -- is that he says roughly 60% of the guns in America do not have a single part that falls under that definition. The AR-15, for example, has a split receiver -- one upper and one lower. Neither meets the requirement on its own.

"For 50 years, ATF has been making this square peg fit in the round hole," O'Kelly told CNN, "when, in fact, it doesn't."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HCM

Maybe, maybe not.

https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-rowold

Are you familiar with United States v. Rowold, 429 F. Supp. 3d 469 (N.D. Ohio 2019). ?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...47475.amp.html

---

You make a very interesting point. i read the case, found no subsequent negative history, and found the definition in the CFR unchanged. Yes, the ATF could certainly try to fit a square peg into a round hole again, but it would seem even more of a stretch to try to say that the slide or barrel is the frame or receiver.

Supposedly the ATF will be modifying the regulations to make "ghost guns" more difficult to build, so we will see what they attempt.