3-D Plastic "Liberator" now available...

I thought these things blew up in your hand like 1/3 times?

Has something changed to make these more viable as actual firearms now?

a reply to: JBurns

The people that are against this are the same ones that argued for "The Anarchists Cookbook".


Hypocrites.

originally posted by: JIMC5499

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JBurns

Perhaps someone should publish plans for a demolition shaped charge, suicide vest, nuclear dirty bomb or bio bomb and a convenient rocket delivery system. You could build them at home.

I mean they are armaments, so every American has a 1st Amendment 'right' to carry them. It clearly says the "right to bear arms", not "the right to bear guns".

Only for personal protection, of course.

You got your Amendments screwed up. It is the Second Amendment. The one that reads.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Technically the way the Second Amendment is worded, I should be able to own anything that the US Military has, that I can afford. You know the whole Militia, security of a free State thing.

You are correct, it is the second amendment.

That being said, I think it is a bit screwy to suggest that carrying a deadly (and most times otherwise unnecessary) weapon is a 'right'.

Because, in practice, if someone (such as a police officer) believes you are carrying such a weapon, then it is acceptable for them to assume that you intend to use it against them and they can argue that any armed response on their part, was self defense.

Of course if you are legally carrying a weapon as self protection, then so is your potential assailant. This ensures a potential threat becomes an actual gun fight and there is no net advantage of the law to either party, it only escalates the risk of harm.

So, in reality, the law is actually a 'right' to be shot for simply being law abiding.

It is like enshrining in law a 'right' to drill a large hole in your head.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

It isn't illegal, and even the DOJ (who would have to prosecute) concedes it is protected by the first and second amendment. Further, that court's order only applies to DefenseDistributed, LLC. and not private Citizens exercising free speech.

I downloaded the original files in 2012, personally. Happy to share with my fellow American citizens

a reply to: chr0naut

Because, in practice, if someone (such as a police officer) believes you are carrying such a weapon, then it is acceptable for them to assume that you intend to use it against them and they can argue that any armed response on their part, was self defense.

No, that isn't true. What you described is murder. The barrier for an LEO using deadly force is (generally) no different than a Citizen. A few exceptions exist, State by State, such as an LEO/correction officer using deadly force to prevent felonious escape (Citizens don't normally face that situation)

In fact, there are three elements required to deploy deadly force:

1) Ability - The attacker must have a deadly weapon/be capable of inflicting deadly force
2) Opportunity - The attacker must be capable of imminently & immediately using that deadly weapon to inflict deadly force (ie: not standing 500ft away with a knife making credible threats)
3) Intent - The attacker must be actively attempting to employ unlawful deadly force against you (ie: you can't shoot someone just because they're standing near you with a firearm) or communicating that intent in such a way that a reasonable person would believe it is credible/imminent (verbal threats, aiming the weapon at you without speaking, etc)

They must have the Ability, Opportunity and Intent to inflict severe harm/death on you or another person. All three must exist simultaneously to qualify as a true credible and imminent objectively-reasonable deadly threat (thus warranting and justifying a lethal force response). In the situation I gave above, where a person is standing near you with a firearm in hand, deadly force would *not* be justifiable because only 2/3 of those conditions have been met. In that same scenario, both Ability & Opportunity have been established, while Intent has not been demonstrated. If the person in the scenario posed were to make credible threats of violence while simultaneously standing near you with a firearm in hand, then you'd most likely be justified in DGU

In the other situation posed above, where an attacker is standing 500ft away armed with a knife and making credible threats, you also do not have legal justification to use deadly force. Just as you cannot shoot a person standing 10ft away from you for simply holding a firearm (without any intent to reasonably believe they were trying to cause severe harm/death) you cannot shoot a person armed with a close-range weapon such as a knife but standing outside the effective range of its use because they have no opportunity to carry out their otherwise credible threat. It is credible, but not imminent. They have the ability and intent, but no opportunity.

In all cases, the "reasonable belief" standard will be applied. To be considered lawful, the average person in your situation would have to believe they (or another person) were in imminent danger of life-threatening wounding or death. It is implied and codified that employing deadly force is a "reasonable" response to that danger.

*I'm not a lawyer, just my understanding of the law which varies (sometimes significantly) from State to State, Free America vs wannabe-communist America etc.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I thought these things blew up in your hand like 1/3 times?

Has something changed to make these more viable as actual firearms now?

Wayfarer, the sad thing is that I don't think they have changed. It seems like much adieu about nothing. That is why the level of outrage over this is hard to fathom

I personally have had these files since ~2012 when they first came out. They have been circulating on the Internet since that time as well, with many downloads I am sure. Bringing attention to it in such a way has no doubt increased those downloads, but overall they are still fairly useless for anything other than an absolute last resort (no other weapon available)

There are some higher quality machines that can produce better quality 3D printed firearms (that are designed specifically for the job), the "GhostGunner" is by far the highest quality. It is a computer aided CNC machine, and will create the metallic version of the 3D printed guns that are far higher quality and longer lasting

That device has been available for some time now, however.

These 3D printed firearms will still be picked up by metal detectors. In fact they are illegal if they don't contain any metallic components

I also point out that building unserialized/unregistered firearms at home has never been unlawful. Nor has sharing these CAD files in-person to other US citizens or US citizen restricted websites. The issue here was ITAR weapons export laws... the same laws that triggerered major court battles over encryption software at the turn of century

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: chr0naut

Because, in practice, if someone (such as a police officer) believes you are carrying such a weapon, then it is acceptable for them to assume that you intend to use it against them and they can argue that any armed response on their part, was self defense.

No, that isn't true. What you described is murder. The barrier for an LEO using deadly force is (generally) no different than a Citizen. A few exceptions exist, State by State, such as an LEO/correction officer using deadly force to prevent felonious escape (Citizens don't normally face that situation)

In fact, there are three elements required to deploy deadly force:

1) Ability - The attacker must have a deadly weapon/be capable of inflicting deadly force
2) Opportunity - The attacker must be capable of imminently & immediately using that deadly weapon to inflict deadly force (ie: not standing 500ft away with a knife making credible threats)
3) Intent - The attacker must be actively attempting to employ unlawful deadly force against you (ie: you can't shoot someone just because they're standing near you with a firearm) or communicating that intent in such a way that a reasonable person would believe it is credible/imminent (verbal threats, aiming the weapon at you without speaking, etc)

They must have the Ability, Opportunity and Intent to inflict severe harm/death on you or another person. All three must exist simultaneously to qualify as a true credible and imminent objectively-reasonable deadly threat (thus warranting and justifying a lethal force response). In the situation I gave above, where a person is standing near you with a firearm in hand, deadly force would *not* be justifiable because only 2/3 of those conditions have been met. In that same scenario, both Ability & Opportunity have been established, while Intent has not been demonstrated. If the person in the scenario posed were to make credible threats of violence while simultaneously standing near you with a firearm in hand, then you'd most likely be justified in DGU

In the other situation posed above, where an attacker is standing 500ft away armed with a knife and making credible threats, you also do not have legal justification to use deadly force. Just as you cannot shoot a person standing 10ft away from you for simply holding a firearm (without any intent to reasonably believe they were trying to cause severe harm/death) you cannot shoot a person armed with a close-range weapon such as a knife but standing outside the effective range of its use because they have no opportunity to carry out their otherwise credible threat. It is credible, but not imminent. They have the ability and intent, but no opportunity.

In all cases, the "reasonable belief" standard will be applied. To be considered lawful, the average person in your situation would have to believe they (or another person) were in imminent danger of life-threatening wounding or death. It is implied and codified that employing deadly force is a "reasonable" response to that danger.

*I'm not a lawyer, just my understanding of the law which varies (sometimes significantly) from State to State, Free America vs wannabe-communist America etc.

While I agree that shooting someone with intent is murder (and by accident is manslaughter), nearly every second week on ATS there is a "police officer shoots unarmed..." type thread where, every time, they claim that they thought the assailant was armed. And the worse thing is that these officers seem to frequently escape being charged with murder or even manslaughter.

Here's a database of this year's shootings by police that have proved fatal. Read through a few of them and you'll see I'm not talking BS.

Since the file in the original post has been removed by it's host, here's a magnet link to a mega pack containing multiple printable guns.