41 Month Sentence For CNC Machine Lowers

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-to-41-months/

Guy gets 41 month sentence for selling 80% lowers, then taking payment for assisting finishing with CNC mill.

It never ceases to amaze me how many socialist SJW morons there are in the self-appointed "intellectual elite" of Ars Technica. Really smart when it comes to coding or hardware but complete idiots when it comes to the Constitution, American heritage, REAL economy, etc.

Headline is suspect, tries to make it seem like 80%ers on a CNC are a no-go.

Guy was perceived to be manufacturing without a license (always debatable). Huge difference between that and your typical at-home 80% project CNC or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

Also what if - heaven to Betsy - someone shared a CAD drawing for a pre '82 or whatever it is DIAS. Can we now prosecute them for NFA violations because someone plugged a machine in and manufactured it with little effort? They could have found better logic in this case; Here the case's logic is information is illegal.

---

Somebody better be running and hiding. I'm pretty certain a quick google image search will provide those drawings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

Agreed, like I said, they should have - mostly - known better. However if the case actually relies on the logic "because he made the CNC program" it is a dangerous mandate. E.g. slippery slope towards calling sharing CAD drawings, plastic printed receiver BP, CNC scripts, etc.online as "unlawful manufacturing" because someone else can plug it into a CNC and mill it with little effort -or print it, even though that occurs outside your knowledge.

Also what if - heaven to Betsy - someone shared a CAD drawing for a pre '82 or whatever it is DIAS. Can we now prosecute them for NFA violations because someone plugged a machine in and manufactured it with little effort? They could have found better logic in this case; Here the case's logic is information is illegal.

When in reality, the crime is telling people merely pressing a start button on his machines is a loophole where they don't have to serialize weapons. Not writing CNC software.

---

Yes, it's a slippery slope and a lot of times this is going to come down to BATF opinion and people lose their lives (juries, ham sandwiches).

What is manufacturing? If I write a program at work it is said I have built a work product (which my client owns per our contract). But a work product is not a firearm. Just like a metal rod at the hardware store is not a firearm. So he made something but not a gun. No different from MagPul making armorer wrenches. The product isn't part of the weapon once completed.

Is letting my friend borrow my MagPul wrench to work on a 80% lower a crime?

Could restoring mens rea help clear this up?

He didn't intend to be a manufacturer and only derived money/profit from helping others manufacture weapons that remained in their possession (a blank up to 80% is not a weapon after all). OTOH a person who did intend to be a manufacturer and sell illicit firearms would run afoul of the law and leave a trail of objective evidence that isn't this subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ray1970

Somebody better be running and hiding. I'm pretty certain a quick google image search will provide those drawings.

---

That took about 4 seconds.

https://d2t1xqejof9utc.cloudfront.ne...e8c2/large.JPG
https://d2t1xqejof9utc.cloudfront.ne...2c11/large.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skip

Could restoring mens rea help clear this up?

---

https://youtu.be/gShIlz2If40

[ROFL2]

Too funny.

I think the guy in the article should've known better....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skip

Yes, it's a slippery slope and a lot of times this is going to come down to BATF opinion and people lose their lives (juries, ham sandwiches).

What is manufacturing? If I write a program at work it is said I have built a work product (which my client owns per our contract). But a work product is not a firearm. Just like a metal rod at the hardware store is not a firearm. So he made something but not a gun. No different from MagPul making armorer wrenches. The product isn't part of the weapon once completed.

Is letting my friend borrow my MagPul wrench to work on a 80% lower a crime?

Could restoring mens rea help clear this up?

He didn't intend to be a manufacturer and only derived money/profit from helping others manufacture weapons that remained in their possession (a blank up to 80% is not a weapon after all). OTOH a person who did intend to be a manufacturer and sell illicit firearms would run afoul of the law and leave a trail of objective evidence that isn't this subjective.

---

I agree it is a slippery slope. It seems like I heard a similar argument 25 years ago (give or take a couple) involving a copy of "The Poor Man's James Bond" (or whatever the book was called) and a piece of iron pipe.

Hillary commits a bunch of federal felonies and nothing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy

Hillary commits a bunch of federal felonies and nothing?

---

Like Foxtrot said, didn't involve a CNC machine.

Maybe someone should send a box of 80% lowers to the Clinton Foundation? Hopefully they have an address in NYC.

Plans and specifications, as well as material selection, manufacturability and yes, even machine code is, and always has been (since inception of various design tools and machinery), part and parcel of a completed project in the engineering community. From a pad of paper to a car to a building.

If you write the code for the CNC, or use a manual mill on an 80% lower, I would agree that meets the letter of the law. To argue that the code in a CNC is not part of a design goes against the basic fundamentals of engineering design.

Without coming to a legal conclusion since I am not a lawyer or a judge :) I agree with your assertions foxtrot.