By John Seiler

Friday I wrote about federal attempts to ban a 3D gun that you can “print” on your desktop. I pointed out how such bans were similar to how the Soviet Union tightly controlled Xerox copiers, and banned unauthorized use.

Now this:

“State Senator Leland Yee (D-SF) said he’ll seek to ban that use of the technology. Yee said California should be “proactive” about stopping the potential proliferation of guns that “are invisible to metal detectors and that can be easily made without a background check….. We must ensure that it is not used for the wrong purpose with potentially deadly consequences.’”

He’s planning on introducing legislation later this year.

The blueprints for such guns are available free on the Internet. The only way to ban such guns would to take five actions, all essential:

1) Completely ban 3D printers of any type. This would sharply reduce Americans’ economic freedom even more than it already is.

2) Completely ban any blueprints of 3D guns. This would entail closely watching Internet use for every persona and business in California.

3) The California government would have to take over and run all businesses associated with the Internet to make sure they didn’t advance the 3D guns. The government would have to seize Apple, Google, Facebook, Intel, etc. The companies would then be run by government agencies, such as the DMV. Any attempts by company personnel to leave the state would be halted, and the officers thrown in prison.

4) All California businesses and homes would be searched frequently to make sure they didn’t acquire 3D technology on the black market. Computers would be licensed and limited. Cell phones would be banned.

5) The state’s borders with other states and Mexico would be sealed off to prevent anyone from entering or leaving without permission. Such people might bring in illicit 3D printers; or take leave the state only to purchase 3D printers elsewhere then bring them back.

In short, Lee’s proposal would work only if a Soviet-North Korean-style police state were imposed. If he actually advances his anti-3D gun legislation, he should make sure the that part is clear in the text.
.

By John Seiler

The old Soviet Union tyranny tightly controlled Xerox copiers. Every machine had to be registered with the government, which kept copies of the printouts. Each copier had a “footprint” that’s different from other copiers. So if someone used a particular Xerox machine to print criticisms of the government, the person could be tracked down and imprisoned.

Once-free America now is like that. The U.S. State Department just banned distribution of blueprints for making a gun on a 3D printer. The Guardian:

“The US government has blocked a Texas-based company from distributing details online of how to make a plastic gun using a 3-D printer.

“The ban, by the State Department citing international arms control law, comes just days after the world’s first such gun was successfully fired.

“Defense Distributed, the company that made the prototype, stated on Twitter that its project had ‘gone dark’ at the instigation of the government….

“Fifteen of the gun’s 16 pieces are constructed on the $8,000 Stratasys Dimension SST 3D printer, Forbes said. The final piece is a common nail, used as a firing pin, that can be found in a hardware store.”

But the ban came after about 100,000 copies of the blueprint had been downloaded. Right away, the blueprints were available at Pirate Bay and other sites in freer countries. So, like a samizdat smuggled out of the USSR, the 3D blueprint already have popped up on sites out of the reach of the USSA.

The State Department is so bumbling it couldn’t prevent its own personnel from being killed in Benghazi, which ongoing hearings are investigating.

Secretary of State John Kerry has been shown to be the pompous incompetent he is. President Brezhnev Obama has been shown as out of touch with new technologies his autocracy seeks to control, but can’t. And attempts to pass new anti-gun laws in California and elsewhere have been proven irrelevant.

Here’s a YouTube of how the gun works.

Following that is a copy of the ukase issued by the Supreme Soviet.

————————————————

United States Department of State

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs

Offense of Defense Trade Controls Compliance

May 08, 2013

In reply letter to DTCC Case: 13-0001444

[Cody Wilson’s address redacted]

Dear Mr. Wilson,

The Department of State, Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance, Enforcement Division (DTCC/END) is responsible for compliance with and civil enforcement of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778) (AECA) and the AECA’s implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 C.F.R. Parts 120-130) (ITAR). The AECA and the ITAR impose certain requirements and restrictions on the transfer of, and access to, controlled defense articles and related technical data designated by the United States Munitions List (USML) (22 C.F.R. Part 121).

The DTCC/END is conducting a review of technical data made publicly available by Defense Distributed through its 3D printing website, DEFCAD.org, the majority of which appear to be related to items in Category I of the USML. Defense Distributed may have released ITAR-controlled technical data without the required prior authorization from the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), a violation of the ITAR.

Technical data regulated under the ITAR refers to information required for the design, development, production, manufacture, assembly, operation, repair, testing, maintenance or modification of defense articles, including information in the form of blueprints, drawings, photographs, plans, instructions or documentation. For a complete definition of technical data, see 120.10 of the ITAR. Pursuant to 127.1 of the ITAR, it is unlawful to export any defense article or technical data for which a license or written approval is required without first obtaining the required authorization from the DDTC. Please note that disclosing (including oral or visual disclosure) or tranferring technical data to a foreign person, whether in the United States or abroad, is considered an export under 120.17 of the ITAR.

The Department believes Defense Distributed may not have established the proper jurisdiction of the subject technical data. To resolve this matter officially, we request that Defense Distributed submit Commodity Jurisdiction (CJ) determination requests for the following selection of data files available on DEFCAD.org, and any other technical data for which Defense Distributed is unable to determine proper jurisdiction:

1. Defense Distributed Liberator pistol
2. .22 electric
3. 125mm BK-14M high-explosive anti-tank warhead
4. 5.56/.223 muzzle brake
5. Springfield XD-40 tactical slide assembly
6. Sound Moderator – slip on
7. “The Dirty Diane” 1/2-28 to 3/4-16 STP S3600 oil filter silencer adapter
8. 12 gauge to .22 CB sub-caliber insert
9. Voltlock electronic black powder system
10. VZ-58 sight

DTCC/END requests that Defense Distributed submits its CJ requests within three weeks of the receipt of this letter and notify this office of the final CJ determinations. All CJ requests must be submitted electronically through an online application using the DS-4076 Commodity Jurisdiction Request Form. The form, guidance for submitting CJ requests, and other relevant information such as a copy of the ITAR can be found on DDTC’s website at http://www.pmddtc.state.gov.

Until the Department provides Defense Distributed with the final CJ determinations, Defense Distributed should treat the above technical data as ITAR-controlled. This means that all such data should be removed from public access immediately. Defense Distributed should also review the remainder of the data made public on its website to determine whether any additional data may be similarly controlled and proceed according to ITAR requirements.

Additionally, DTCC/END requests information about the procedures Defense Distributed follows to determine the classification of its technical data, to include aforementioned technical data files. We ask that you provide your procedures for determining proper jurisdiction of technical data within 30 days of the date of this letter to Ms. Bridget Van Buren, Compliance Specialist, Enforcement Division, at the address below.

Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance

PM/DTCC, SA-1, Room L132

2401 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20522

Phone 202-663-3323

We appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please note our reference number in any future correspondence.

Sincerely,

Glenn E. Smith

Chief, Enforcement Division