Then again, I've not grown up with guns being in suburban Sydney, Australia. I've never really seen the fascination of them. When a friend of mine kept bugging me to print him a gun, I printed a solid kids toy one. It shut him up

In the end, that's my 2c, feel free to do what you'd like. Post your results if you dare

I posted in here the other day re-iterating my confusion as to why nobody but primarily North Americans south of the 49th parallel even care about printing a 3D gun.. but deleted it on the basis it'd mostly be read as flame bait... but anyway... seeing the popular meme re Four Boxes of Liberty ("There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order.") that is attributed to Ed Howdershelt in someones sig on another forum prompts me to wonder and have to ask:

Why is there so much attention paid to the 4th Box with a fervor and passion that seems rarely, if ever, applied to the 2nd or 3rd boxes ? Except when the 1st box is used to defend the 4th box ? It would seem to me that if the same passion was applied to boxes 1,2 and 3 - you'd never need to open the 4th one. Certainly at the level of an individual.

Meh.. I still just don't get it clearly. Imagine if all that passion and vigor was applied to say, Sciences (Political or Otherwise... ) If its just an exercise in challenging the mind and mechanical engineering mojo - there is a list a mile long of complicated things that need solving for the greater good long before we get new and interesting ways to make 'bang sticks'... and then there's the whole basis now how the 'passion' about 'needing' to 3D Print guns has really upset the apple cart for everyone else. If I had a $1 for every time I got asked now about 3D printed Guns... I'd own Stratsys already and have transferred all their patents to the public domain and still have money left over  

But I do like Ed's quote, it really highlights well how often people are focusing on the last resort rather than the progressive possibilities long before that point.

+1
What your missing though is current political climate and media "Hype" coverage.  That is a conversation I would be happy to have with you privately if you really want to know why this seems to be such a "hot button issue".

Why is there so much attention paid to the 4th Box with a fervor and passion that seems rarely, if ever, applied to the 2nd or 3rd boxes ? Except when the 1st box is used to defend the 4th box ? It would seem to me that if the same passion was applied to boxes 1,2 and 3 - you'd never need to open the 4th one. Certainly at the level of an individual.

Meh.. I still just don't get it clearly. Imagine if all that passion and vigor was applied to say, Sciences (Political or Otherwise... ) If its just an exercise in challenging the mind and mechanical engineering mojo - there is a list a mile long of complicated things that need solving for the greater good long before we get new and interesting ways to make 'bang sticks'... and then there's the whole basis now how the 'passion' about 'needing' to 3D Print guns has really upset the apple cart for everyone else. If I had a $1 for every time I got asked now about 3D printed Guns... I'd own Stratsys already and have transferred all their patents to the public domain and still have money left over  

But I do like Ed's quote, it really highlights well how often people are focusing on the last resort rather than the progressive possibilities long before that point.

I have no intentions of boiling blood and apologize if I ever had.

My bloods not boiling, -I'm not American, so have no second amendment rights, I do see the pro's and cons...

The modifications to the second amendment are possibly symptomatic of the problem...

I.e a bit of paper says this, and lawyers from any group with a vested interest, (be it those who want or those who don't want guns will argue a point.) and thus you have a very paired down and exacting definition of what that 2nd amendment means, (the right to bear arms as a part of a well organised militia.)

so you have situations where it's not unreasonable to say that handguns may not be the correct tool of a militia, certainly as far as I know handguns are not issued to every soldier? but at the same time full automatic weapons ARE issued to every soldier, and thus by definition of what a regular army does, and what a militia does in standing in for a regular army at a local level, you'd argue that you should ban all handguns, (side arms are not critical to a well run militia, but at the same time all a lot "bigger and scarier" guns.

for what it's worth, I would argue the following... (I did write this last time but deleted it because I wasn't sure if getting into the second amendment was either on or off topic.)

The constitution was written near enough directly after the war of independence,
the colonial government was not fit for purpose, nor representative.

In order to gain freedom from colonial rule loads of people fought and died.
there is no doubt in my mind that the first and second amendments at the time are more about allowing people to live in a free country.

that is to say that you must be allowed free speech of any kind, (so that you can freely say that something is wrong) and you must be allowed to keep arms either to form a militia for the purpose of defence of your land against in conjunction with a domestic military, (i.e fighting invading forces) or fighting against an established governing power. -the same as the people who wrote the constitution had just done.

in order to form an unofficial and revolutionary army, you *must* be allowed to gather keep and use arms, fundamentally you must be able to make arms, AND those arms should be as high tech and undetectable as possible.

it's pretty clear in my mind what the second amendment is meant to mean (given the history at the time of it's writing). however it doesn't explicitly say all of that.

it says that you're allowed to keep arms and form militia without any express indication of what for.
thus if you form militia to overthrow government (exactly the same as the founding fathers did you're guilty of a crime).
because you can keep arms for the purpose of forming militia, you can argue that handguns are not covered by the second amendment, - they certainly are not issued to every member of the regular army. -however in saying that -and drawing that comparison you therefore MUST allow all arms of the military in civilian ownership. after all how do you form an effective militia without good weapons?

you see the problem here? if you look at a historical context you can argue that the manufacture of arms, (especially hard to detect composite construction arms that you can make at home) not only are covered but are the EXACT kind of arms that a bunch of people who just overthrew an established government army would be thinking of when they wrote the document!. (i.e you have a right to freedom, and you have a right to fight for that freedom exactly as they just had -because they were clever enough to realise that future governments might be corrupt and perhaps need to be overthrown? -I'm pretty sure that the government of the few colonies on the east coast didn't start off corrupt, but by the time the whole of the us was colonized, the government was far from representative. if not outright corrupt.

but in the real world, we only have to work with what was written,
nothing was written about a right to manufacture arms.
you have no constitutional right to manufacture arms.
it's not a second amendment issue.

as for the media coverage...
it's sad that when telling people that you own a 3d printer the first thing that they think of is printing handguns, and not stories like how medical supplies -umbilical cord clips have been printed (in Haiti) or how it has allowed rapid prototyping of products at home.
how it's allowed people to print replacement parts (like this week I printed a ratchet strap for a roller skate as the previous one broke and the manufacturer refuses (I did ask) to provide spare parts. and thus reduced landfill waste.

to be honest (aside from talking to my dad -who seems to have a constant list of things he needs to make) just about every conversation I have seems to centre around me assuring people that I'm not making guns...

of course what I don't say is if I were to make a gun it'd be the ignorant fools like you (as in the people who keep asking if 3d printers are for making guns ignoring all other possibilities) that I'd come after first...

since it's been a long post I'll surmise.

defence distributed, just ruined kids games, made toy guns the kind of thing you could get gunned down for having. and frankly looked like tools whilst they were doing it.

gun manufacture -"I" don't believe is a second amendment issue, because, legally you don't argue about the intent of the law you argue about the written part of the law.

-the same as I feel fine like I could drive after a few beers with good reactions, so should I drive? my friend is drunk after 1 beer and would crash if they drove. when stopped by the police I'd be arrested, they'd be allowed to carry on and crash.
the intent of DUI laws is to stop people driving whilst having slowed reactions due to the influence of alcohol.
however, the police can only act on the words, hence my feeling drunk but under 30mg/ml friend gets to go drive into a child whilst my other, over the limit but actually pretty fit to drive friend finds himself in court.

I understand why people want to make it a second amendment issue -I believe it should be. but I also believe that in a legal sense the argument won't get very far.

Making guns with a fused filament printer is pretty much asking for trouble. -see my earlier comments about gun barrel proofing, and historically, those countries that did not test gun barrels often found that more of their own soldiers died than the oppositions.

An exploding barrel will hurt you and anyone around you.

Plastic is not a good gun material. -simple material science shows us that it expands and contracts too much with heat for precision parts. it suffers fatigue very poorly and becomes brittle with age and exposure to sunlight.

Basically there is a reason than that they make gun parts from metal, and it's not so it requires mad skills, (a desktop metal CNC machine could make a gun in a "download design and press go" situation also.)

and for me... that's the real issue...
I'd be much more interested in designing a gun if there was a realistic chance of it becoming a real (and safe) object.

i.e if we were all owners of metal mills rather than plastic printers it would be fun to group design a gun -I've no interest in owning said gun, but figuring out the parts would be interesting, and I could see them working via videos of those who did make the thing.

the big problem is, (and I think that it's likely more than just me who thinks this) there's very little skill in designing grips, -boring, and very little point in designing a gun or gun parts, because that video that's being made is not so much fun when exerts are being played on the news showing the gun breaking up and getting cut right before it kills you on the evening news...

this is not a 2nd amendment issue, and any attempts to correlate it with the 2nd amendment are just a red herring designed to make people upset...

I have no intentions of boiling blood and apologize if I ever had.
I suppose you could say I was agreeing with your statement of (cowboys and indians) without announcing it. On that thought, some frown on guns nowadays (sometimes for very logical reasons) to an extreme. Where even TOYS are being banned.
Case in point:
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2014/02/1 … oody-doll/

I in no way intended to come across as "Do what you will" mentality. So I hope nobody thought that. I agree with informing, well, somebody of said intentions of printing. Personal freedom is more important than a hobby.

Excellent question. While I do not have an answer for that from personal experience, I knew someone (fairly well) who worked for a gunsmithing company. He had no credentials needed other than machining experience to get the job. As far as a worker goes, no registration is needed. The owner and operator of said company though, I am certain would have much red tape to cross before legally recognized.

They have good cause.

Due to media coverage of how a 3D printer "could" make a gun (some are radically biased, one even shocking from a Utah publication), it unfortunately is a touch deeper than manufacturing itself. The 2nd Ammendment (sorry to bring it up again) is different in each state, county, city, neighborhood. The laws in Jacksonville, Fl are far and away different than those of Morton Grove, Il, which became the first town in the country to ban handguns...an unthinkable ruling compared to Florida, even though they are both the same country. Which is why consulting with legal professionals in your local area before moving ahead with printing is the best idea.

Whether made of metal, plastic, or potato chips, anything that launches a bullet is classified as a gun. So yes, 2nd Ammendment conversation and understanding is needed on this topic.
I am fully aware the 2nd has been changed/modified over the years. How we (anyone on or off this forum) interperate gun laws will vary, especially from one nation to another.

Thank you very much for your addition! From what I understand, even a typical London police officer cannot carry a firearm (aside from tactical team, correct?). Far and away from American laws for sure...

by and large the police carry no weapons other than a truncheon and CS spray, where truncheon (think half sized baseball bat) has been replaced with standard extending baton/night stick many years ago.

that's starting to change now that Tazers have been invented, police are starting to receive arms training for tazers and carrying them.

There are armed response teams. and if you visit St James' park at Buckingham palace you will see the police there carrying SA80's (though I'm not sure if that's the regular or MOD police.)

but in general, no the police do not carry guns. and those that do have had "specialist" training. -though it's not clear that specialist firearms training is anything more than you'd teach a child when taking them to a range in the states.

I would say I see it the other way around, it's easier to stay on the "good" side of the law (different from the right side of the law) if you're straight up with said law, obviously out experiences are different here.

I wonder what steps need to be taken to register as a gun smith. at that point excessive harassment from police or ATF might be avoided since you're a legit business.

it's not that unreasonable for police to get "twitchy" about the idea of people printing guns at home. I mean think how many solidoodle printers alone have been made and sold, if each solidoodle owner were to print just 1 undetectable untraceable gun then that poses a significant law enforcement issue.

it's NOT a second amendment issue for three reasons:

(from Wikipedia)

The right to bear arms DOES NOT apply to any and all arms,

3d printed gun can be outlawed with the threat of the death penalty, but your 2nd amendment rights remain 100% intact.

secondly

3d printed guns do not have a reasonable relationship to a well organised militia.

you have a free right to keep an bear arms, the discussion is over the manufacture of arms.
you do not have a constitutional right to manufacture arms at all...

this is not a 2nd amendment issue, and any attempts to correlate it with the 2nd amendment are just a red herring designed to make people upset...

In the US, it most likely would unwise to do this unless you are friends with, related to, or very comfortable around officer. You may very well suffer harassment, rendom searches and seizures, and the ATF and/or FBI breathing down your neck. It would be a very bad experience for anyone associated. So the OP's comment of not file sharing is not only honorable, but responsible.
However, I in no way condone or recommend printing controlled objects (i.e. guns) for mischevious reasons.

As stated above, if anyone wishes to print a firearm in the US with peaceful, educational, and RESPONSIBLE intentions, I recommend contacting a lawyer and retaining his/her services before progressing. This would not mean you are clear for your project, but you would simply have a leg to stand on if brought to trial. The 2nd Ammendment is dwindling here, so it really is a grey area here in relation to American law.

All the legislation is laid out on pretty easy to read language. (that should be the most up to date with all amendments etc)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27
(just search for the term manufacture)

We don't have a constitution of rights. that muddies up any points or anything like that.

for the purpose of UK law we'll deal with Shot guns, Hand guns, automatic weapons and then Firearms.

Shot guns,
Any body can "use" a shot gun. -that is to say you can go shooting with a friend.
anything more than borrowing a mates gun requires you to apply for a "shot gun certificate" it's a reasonably easy to get certificate that allows you to own guns, (as many as you like), each gun must have a serial number and must be kept in a secure cabinet (where there are laws surrounding the gun cabinet constructions and fixing to the wall).
it's illegal to have a gun in a public place (where a public place includes your car). without a good reason - e.g on the way to/from a hunt/shooting session. -so you can carry your guns out your house, walk down the road to a field, do some shooting etc, then walk home, but taking your guns to the pub en-route whilst walking would be foul of the law.
same applies to a car, but to a greater or lesser extend anyone who's ever been on a hunt knows that everyone goes to the pub afterwards.

Hand guns.
You can't have them, they've been outlawed for well over a decade now, since the dunblane masaccre. (where a scoutmaster murdered a class full of five of six year old kids plus teachers.

Automatic weapons.
again restricted by law, -they are explicit exceptions to what is classed as a firearm in law -that is described in the act linked above, automatic weapons are not firearms in the UK.

Firearms.
require a different certificate than you get for keeping shotguns, (think of the shotgun cert as the easy to get cert -requiring only respected members of the community to "vouch" for you). a firearm cert takes more paperwork, and more specific recommendation, -and they are renewed more frequently. firearm law coveres everything that's not a hand gun, shot gun air gun or automatic/semi automatic weapon. (basically riffles).

Airguns,
pretty much a free for all. - as you may have guessed from my talk of hunting etc I've in the country rather than the city, it's common place for people to own guns, I have air riffles when I was growing up. and have been clay shooting, know many people who still clay shoot, and have been hunting for food, as well as having seen organised game shoots...

however, if you live in a town, I would suggest not performing target practice from an upstairs window into your garden, when a neighbour calls the police, they can and will respond with an armed response unit, who will have you on your knees with hands behind your head whilst they search your house. (this actually happened to a friend while at university) -actually it more happened to his house mate, in the middle of a romantic dinner.

For the manufacture of firearms.
clearly, once finished making a firearm you'll own a firearm -so much be licensed to do that.
any gun barrel produced for sale in the UK must be proofed.
http://www.gunproof.com/Proofing/proofing.html

gun makers are still proofing guns.
http://www.gunmakers.org.uk/proofhouse.html

I haven't investigated their site too far as I don't actually want to make a gun. but it looks like if you join them then you can design and make guns, have them proofed, serialised recorded and ready for sale as a pretty easy process...

In the UK -just like in the US and anywhere else in the world, if you want to make a gun then there is very little technically or legally to stop you. get the right permit/certificate to own the gun you're going to make, get help (there are a number of gun smiting forums who will point you in the right direction). and it wouldn't hurt to go and let the local fuzz know what you're getting up to in your garage. -not a requirement but a really good idea. and will go a long way to help your case when you're raided and 3d printer parts are thought to be guns...

as said I've go no interest in making a gun...
however, it is something I've looked at before...
If I were to make a gun...
It'd be a traditionally made, (and lovingly hand crafted) shotgun, by traditionally made I mean using traditional method, smoke fit etc, (smoke fit is a method of creating perfect clearances using soot from a candle to blacken a surface, -you then assemble the mechanism, then take it apart, any bit where the soot is worn off clearly is too tight and must be adjusted.)

The barrel would certainly be proofed, not because I'd intend to sell the gun (then it's be a legal requirement), but because it's one of those really good idea type deals, one of the big reasons that Britain managed (hundreds of years ago) to murder half the world and claim it's land as our own is that we tested our gun barrels, others didn't and they had exceptionally high fatality rates related to barrel explosions.

The only way a 3d printer would be involved is in either making tooling, -to aid the manufacture.

or making prototype parts (e.g testing a lock mechanism)

or making parts for a lost wax type casting (except lost PLA).

a final note about guns in the UK.
even plastic replica and toy guns that look real will be considered dangerous from a distance, the police will shoot first and ask questions later -that's why toy guns have that big orange plastic cap on them.

the public have a right to feel safe in public.
That's why you'll be shot for having a really realistic looking toy gun and waving it about.

and that's the thing that I find incredibly annoying about the whole defence distributed guys.
they claim to be all about guns, and free ownership of guns.

but what have they done?
made a few nick knacks on a really expensive printer (though nothing that needs any real strength.
well whoopee, for most of the parts that they made you could carve them from wood, or cast them in concrete.
there have been part finished (and not serialised) lower receiver parts available for decades (that you just need to file to fit)
so it's not even like they made it so very much easier to make a hard to make part...

so having established that they haven't really helped in gun manufacture at all, what have they really done...

They've made plastic guns scary, thus ruining games of cowboys and Indians/cops and robbers for five year old all over the world.

If someone were to be malicious with a firearm, people blame the firearm. Because that is the hot topic. As a history buff, I COULD get into the problems that lay in the scenario of an unarmed populace, and even in my own experiences from living in Chicago (harshest gun laws in the US) and Florida/SE Georgia, and taking away guns only gives street thugs the upper hand. Plain and simple. If anyone were to print a firearm, especially if they read this thread beforehand, I can only ask they to do so safely, with the right intentions, SAFELY!!, and under proper legal guidance.

The company Antron007 is thinking of is Defense Distributed. They are seeking "international sanctuary" since the American government (FBI, ATF, CIA) have been seizing, banning/blocking, and suing/threatening their printers, websiteS, and their freedom with an undefined threat.

Like I say...one of the cheapest 3D printers on the market is a Solidoodle. This wonderful forum serves as advanced conversations on the tech, but is FLOODED with HELP! threads...hairs ripped out, nails bitten, and all that jazz. With that said: Wouldn't you think it would be easier to just BUY a gun than to buy a printer, wait the 1-7 week shipping, calibrate, tweak, calibrate more, design/download, come on here and ask what you are doing wrong, go back through software calibration, print again, run the firearm through a rigorous series of tests, THEN use it in a crime?
I have known criminals. I have known patient people. But I have never met a criminal quite that patient.

Rant over.

I pretty much agree with you and would rather make em' out of metal but... it is always cool to apply new tech to old processes.

Oh, depending on where you live in the US. handle mods can be illegal.... why? because it make the firearm so much more scary

Truth is, it's people that are dangerous, no matter what you put in their hands, if anything at all. If someone wants to hurt or kill someone, they are going to find a way to do it.  Banning firearms, 3d printed or otherwise, can only hope to achieve a rise in stabbing and beating victims.

Ignorance from the law is no excuse from it. But, ignorance does make one appear more innocent than malicious. Saying "I'm sorry I didn't know" is better than saying, "I knew it was wrong and said ef you and did it anyway."

I personally have no need or or interest in a 3d printed gun. The metal ones work just fine. I do plan on printing a few accessories for my families guns though but, I highly doubt printing a scope mount and some handle mods violates any laws. I am concerned that guns could potentially get 3d printing outlawed. So, I have kept up on the subject a bit.

Lots of good info guys. Thanks for sharing. Sorry I don't know my local laws on this matter.  Not sure when I'll get time to do it and I've really only kept up on the subject on a US national basis. If I happen to learn Ohio's laws before someone else posts them, I will.