On Jan. 24, Colorado, Washington D.C. and 20 other states filed a lawsuit to ban the selling of blueprints for 3D-printed guns and gun parts.
In 2013, a man named Cody Wilson formed Defense Distributed, the first group in the country to sell blueprints for 3D-printed guns. In 2015, the State Department sued in accordance with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, as the blueprints would be sold internationally unregulated and without permits. In 2018, the State Department reached a voluntary settlement for this case that allowed blueprints to be put back online, with no explanation given as to why a settlement was reached.
This lawsuit is not the first time states have filed to stop the creation of 3D-printed guns. There are other cases currently in trial that aim at contesting the State Departments’ previous decision of reaching a settlement. This lawsuit, in contrast, is trying to remove the Commerce Department as the governing body of 3D-printed guns. Colorado and the rest of the states believe this department will not impose the regulations necessary.
3D-printed guns are dangerous because they circumvent existing policies. They are considered “ghost guns,” a term used to describe firearms that do not have an identifying serial number that can be used to match gun purchases to their owner. By law, legal firearms sold in a gun store or by a manufacturer must have a serial number. Printed guns and their parts do not.
All firearms must contain enough metal in the weapon to be able to set off a metal detector. With a 3D-printed firearm, the person printing the weapon must add that metal themselves and there is no way to ensure they have done so. In a licensed gun store, background checks are required to see if the user should be allowed to own a rifle. But with 3D-printed guns, no background checks are done and anyone can buy the blueprints and use a 3D printer to create the weapon.
3D-printed weapons have yet to become popular because the person interested needs access to a printer. Good 3D printers are still not cheap enough for many to own, with medium quality printers costing $700. Public 3D printers tend to have rules stating that weapons are not allowed to be printed. Another obstacle is that the filament used to print is similar to plastic, so the weapons would not be able to hold up to much abuse. While there are fully metal 3D printers, they are expensive to run and own and are less likely to be used in private ownership.
This issue is larger than gun rights versus gun control. In this lawsuit, it has become a question of whether or not code is a form of free speech. Proponents of the 3D-printed weapons have argued that the blueprints created by Wilson constitute freedom of expression, and forcing them to be taken down suppresses his First Amendment rights.
In the 1990s, a precedent was set by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals through Bernstein v. the U.S. Department of State that stated code constitutes free speech. However, the way that code is allowed to be used in programs is not always protected. To transfer this court case to the lawsuit made by Colorado, it could be argued that while the ability to create 3D blueprints is protected, using that blueprint to manufacture a gun is not.
3D-printed guns pose a risk to gun control that all sides should be able to agree on. There is no reason users should prefer that type of weapon for self-defense or hunting, the main two arguments for those against gun control. The more pro-gun activists fight for issues like this, the more they invite people to question their motives and fight them on all gun-related issues.
The government must act pre-emptively with this issue. We already have a major gun problem in our country, and these blueprints would allow anyone who has a printer to create a weapon with no checks. We need to push for regulation of these weapons and blueprints now. Pushing for the regulations once they have already become prevalent is going to be too little, too late.
3D-printed guns and parts should not exist. While the lawsuits and precedents regarding the legality of these weapons are complex, the threat they can pose to society is simple to see. They create loopholes in the weak gun laws we have, and this lawsuit Colorado is a part of—if successful—can stop the problem before it grows later on.
