Washington Washington lawmakers vote to outlaw guns created by 3D printer. Inslee expected to sign bill

[GWS]

I was just looking for a non-lead material to make fishing sinkers (to save the birds, salmon, orcas) and found these strange aluminum blocks. Turns out, they are lousy sinkers. Gonna have to repurpose them.

I heard if you drill some holes in them they might become useful.

 

[No_Regerts]

I heard if you drill some holes in them they might become useful.

You mean, like a wind chime?

 

[awshoot]

Let's say I currently own an untraceable gun and there is no grandfather clause. Now what? I'm I breaking the new law?

If you are in WA, an "untraceable" firearm is one that is made after July 1, 2019 or later in the future. Your hypothetical DIY project does not meet the definition of "untraceable" -- you are grandfathered (as long as it is detectable). That said, it would be a good idea to document its existence prior to July 1st -- one method could be taking a ton of pictures and getting them notarized, then keeping the documents in a safe place.

Untraceable definition:

(34) "Untraceable firearm" means any firearm manufactured after July 1, 2019, that is not an antique firearm and that cannot be traced by law enforcement by means of a serial number affixed to the firearm by a federally licensed manufacturer or importer.

Secondly, even after the law goes into effect, you can still make untraceable (but not undetectable) firearms if you don't intend to sell them:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful
for any person to:
...
(d) Manufacture an untraceable firearm with the intent to sell
the untraceable firearm.

Also, if you make an NFA registered SBR, you are excepted:

(2) It is not unlawful for a person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, assemble, or repair, or have in possession or under control, a short-barreled rifle, or any part
designed or intended solely and exclusively for use in a short-barreled rifle or in converting a weapon into a short-barreled rifle,if the person is in compliance with applicable federal law.

 

[User 1234]

http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/bienn...House Passed Legislature/1739-S.PL.pdf#page=1

Bill as passed by legislature. After July 1st can't build an 80% with the intent to sell it and cannot transfer to or assist a prohibited person to build an 80% or undetectable firearm.

 

[Alexx1401]

Read it again and pay special attention to the "....a person who...." limitation. If you help a felon or other prohibited person acquire or manufacture a functional gun you are violating this new law.

Isn't that already illegal? Sounds like they are making a law to make something that is already a crime, and crime.

 

[User 1234]

It appears that the legislature was concerned that offering advice to a felon who is building a 3D printed gun wasn't illegal so they added a specific prohibition.

 

[awshoot]

It appears that the legislature was concerned that offering advice to a felon who is building a 3D printed gun wasn't illegal so they added a specific prohibition.

Yep -- it's like forbidding a convicted bank robber who has done his time, from watching any of these 12 Best Bank Robbery Movies You Must See and making the director, writer, actors, etc., criminals for providing information.

It is a prior restraint on speech and as such, it might be unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment.

 

[Caveman Jim]

It appears that the legislature was concerned that offering advice to a felon who is building a 3D printed gun wasn't illegal enough so they added a specific prohibition to make it more illegaler .

 

[awshoot]

Isn't that already illegal? Sounds like they are making a law to make something that is already a crime, and crime.

It has long been illegal to "help" by being a straw purchaser. It hasn't been illegal to "help" by, for example, making a video of how to finish an 80% receiver and publishing it on youtube. That is arguably an illegal act in WA come July 1st. Perhaps even merely linking to such a video would be illegal. This why the new law has even greater 1A implications than 2A issues.

Someone should get Bob F. a fireman's hat. This law is his baby.

 

[Alexx1401]

It has long been illegal to "help" by being a straw purchaser. It hasn't been illegal to "help" by, for example, making a video of how to finish an 80% receiver and publishing it on youtube. That is arguably an illegal act in WA come July 1st. Perhaps even merely linking to such a video would be illegal. This why the new law has even greater 1A implications than 2A issues.

Someone should get Bob F. a fireman's hat. This law is his baby.

Ok, now I see what they are trying to do. That would be convenient way to suppress this. Threaten anyone who shares info if someone who is prohibited gets it. Interesting tack they are taking with this.

 

[User 1234]

There is the "knowingly or recklessly" threshold, and there is certain to be a 1st Amendment and vagueness battle when they try to prosecute the first YouTube speaker.

 

[awshoot]

There is the "knowingly or recklessly" threshold, and there is certain to be a 1st Amendment and vagueness battle when they try to prosecute the first YouTube speaker.

True, but look at how "reckless" is defined here:

For purposes of this provision, the failure to conduct a background check as provided in RCW 9.41.113 shall be prima facie evidence of recklessness.

Prima facie is a BS way to say legally sufficient to establish a fact or a case unless disproved. So in the youtube video example, the person who posts the video -- should that info be determined to be of the type prohibited -- will be deemed reckless from the get go, and will have to prove that he or she shouldn't be required to get background checks on every viewer who is (a) prohibited and (b) uses the information to make a weapon. I do think the state has to at least find a prohibited person who made a gun, but they will eventually and then the hurt will fan out.

Maybe I'm being too gloomy, but I went to the court hearing last summer regarding Defense Distributed and the AAG's argument was thoroughly permeated with all kinds of hype and fear about DIY gunsmithing, and then a few months later Bob is sponsoring HB 1739 and SB 5061.

 

[User 1234]

True, but 9.41.113 applies to "firearm sales or transfers." If someone assists but does not sell or transfer a finished firearm to a prohibited person does 9.41.113 "provide" anything or gift the prosecutor their prima facie case? Given the "tie goes to the defendant" rule can the courts use jury instructions with novel interpretations to enable a jury to convict the test case? I don't practice in the criminal field and don't know the answers to these questions, but there are interesting days ahead for some prosecutors and defense counsel.

 

[awshoot]

I was looking at my post above and it seems sort of muddled. Maybe a clearer way to outline this is:

(a) The info must be helpful for DIY firearm making, and
(b) It must find its way to a prohibited person somehow, and
(c) The prohibited person must use the specific information to manufacture a weapon.

If all are true, a crime is committed by the person providing information if the failure to conduct a background check is considered reckless.

Unfortunately, there is no guidance on what info would trigger this law -- a CAD file I would guess is a big yes considering how this is marketed. What about a mechanical drawing with all measurements needed so that a person with CAD software and 40 hours to spare could independently make their own CAD file the hard way? How about a youtube howto video? How about a book on gunsmithing? How about a generic book on lathe and mill operation? What if Amazon sells a general purpose 3D printer to a prohibited person and that person makes a gun with it? Is the answer to the last question different if it is some guy selling an old printer on Craigslist rather than Amazon doing the sale?

I don't know, some of those sound far fetched to me. But I'm not the one who will be arresting or charging people, and I've never even been called for jury duty.

 

[awshoot]

True, but 9.41.113 applies to "firearm sales or transfers." ...

That's the thing, HB 1739 doesn't amend 9.41.113 -- that stays in place and applies to sales of physical firearms. The definition of a firearm will also remain unchanged in this legislation.

Sec 2, Par 1 is a new and additional section which doesn't refer to the transfer of a physical firearm at all -- it refers to the transfer of information about firearm manufacturing (and also the physical bits that go along with manufacturing).

If we were to read the law as having an effect similar to 9.41.113, then the law would be a bunch wasted toner and paper, and courts don't buy that: Statutory interpretation - Wikipedia

Rule against surplusage
Where one reading of a statute would make one or more parts of the statute redundant and another reading would avoid the redundancy, the other reading is preferred.

Anyway, I could be wrong, and the random musings of an internet nobody should not be taken as legal truth. In honesty, I'd be happy to be wrong. But I do think this section means something different than the sections relating to the transfer of real guns.

 

[Alexx1401]

That's the thing, HB 1739 doesn't amend 9.41.113 -- that stays in place and applies to sales of physical firearms. The definition of a firearm will also remain unchanged in this legislation.

Sec 2, Par 1 is a new and additional section which doesn't refer to the transfer of a physical firearm at all -- it refers to the transfer of information about firearm manufacturing (and also the physical bits that go along with manufacturing).

If we were to read the law as having an effect similar to 9.41.113, then the law would be a bunch wasted toner and paper, and courts don't buy that: Statutory interpretation - Wikipedia


Anyway, I could be wrong, and the random musings of an internet nobody should not be taken as legal truth. In honesty, I'd be happy to be wrong. But I do think this section means something different than the sections relating to the transfer of real guns.

I could see some using this as a threat to someone they had a beef with. If they had some other charges or if someone was just a PITA, then using this to make threats. I sure hope we can get gun owners to start to take elections seriously and do some house cleaning here. It is desperately needed

 

[SUPER X]

Isn't that already illegal? Sounds like they are making a law to make something that is already a crime, and crime.

Double Illegal scares the snowflakes more , similar to fully semi automatic

 

[SUPER X]

It has long been illegal to "help" by being a straw purchaser. It hasn't been illegal to "help" by, for example, making a video of how to finish an 80% receiver and publishing it on youtube. That is arguably an illegal act in WA come July 1st. Perhaps even merely linking to such a video would be illegal. This why the new law has even greater 1A implications than 2A issues.

Someone should get Bob F. a fireman's hat. This law is his baby.

So this is common sense freedom of speech laws ?

 

[GWS]

Well, I certainly feel safer now.

 

[GWS]

You mean, like a wind chime?

Exactly!
Something nice, decorative.