41 Month Sentence For CNC Machine Lowers

[00tec]

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.

[Aloha_Shooter]

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.

[Skip]

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.

[ray1970]

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.

[00tec]

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

That took about 4 seconds.

[Skip]

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.

[ray1970]

Could restoring mens rea help clear this up?

[JohnnyDrama]

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

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.

[Skip]

Too funny.

[BushMasterBoy]

Hillary commits a bunch of federal felonies and nothing?