Big Man with a 3D-Printed Gun: One Possible Solution to the Public Safety Problems Presented by Manufacturing Non-Metal Firearms with 3D Printers

Abstract

At this very moment, anyone who wants to murder a judge, legislator or even president candidate could do so with an untraceable plastic gun built at home for about $1,500. This is possible due to advances in 3D printing, a manufacturing process which could revolutionize how everything from toys to buildings is made in the United States in the coming decades. But as the buzz around 3D printing has grown, so to has a culture seeking to use this technology to build firearms that circumvent federal gun regulations. While some pundits have speculated that 3D-printed guns are an unstoppable threat to gun control, several states and cities have already tried to enact laws to regulate these “wiki weapons.” While these flat bans are a start to protect public safety, they all fail to take into account how 3D-printed guns could be stopped at the source: 3D printers. This article argues that all 3D printers sold within the United States should be mandated to ship with software that can detect and refuse to manufacture working firearm parts. It uses Second Amendment jurisprudence, specifically Heller v. D.C. to argue that the federal government has the power to ban 3D-printed plastic firearms, and that Congress could enact such laws because of its powers under the commerce clause. While gun control is unpopular among conservatives in the United States, this article also argues that traditional opponents of gun control laws such as the NRA could actually favor laws banning 3D-printed firearms because of the threat these weapons to pose to the profits of gun manufacturers.

Keywords: 3D printing, 3D-printed guns, the liberator, second amendment, commerce clause, Cody Wilson, constitutional law, Heller

JEL Classification: K00, K10, K19, K42, K49