3D GUNS RESEARCH PAPER 2

3D Guns Research Paper

Controversy surrounding publication of blueprints for 3D printable guns is primarily an
issue of balancing constitutional rights of citizens with other important roles of the government
particularly maintenance of public safety. At stake in this controversy is the extend of limits of
free speech rights and right to bear arms. This paper will show that the First and Second
Amendments do not give citizens unlimited rights.
Second Amendment Analysis
The Second Amendment is part of the U.S. constitution’s Bill of Rights that was ratified
in 1791. It gives U.S. citizens the right to keep and bear arms (Feur, 2015). The constitution is,
however, silent on the extend to which citizens can exercise this right. The case of Cody Wilson
against the U.S. State Department and later various U.S. states highlights the difficulty of
determining the limits of Second Amendment rights.
Background
Controversy over 3D printed guns started in 2012 when a Texas-based company called
Defense Distributed announced plans to start providing computer aided design (CAD) plans for
making plastic guns online. The designs could then be downloaded and made into guns by
anyone using a 3D printer. In 2013, the company made the first of such designs available on the
internet. It was a CAD plan for a handgun called Liberator (Feur, 2015). Following the
publication of this design the State Department demanded that Defense Distributed remove the it
from the internet because it violated the Act governing export of arms from the U.S (Feur, 2015).
Defense Distributed founder, Cody Wilson, complied with this directive. However, two years
later in 2015 he sued the government for infringing on his free speech rights protected by the
First Amendment (CBS, 2018). The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court but it

3D GUNS RESEARCH PAPER 3
declined to hear it. In 2018, the U.S. State Department reached a settlement with Defense
Distributed which allowed the company to continue publishing instructions for 3D printable guns
(CBS, 2018).
When this settlement became public, attorneys-general from 8 states and District of
Columbia went to court seeking to get an injunction to prevent Defense Distributed from
publishing CAD plans for 3D printable guns online (Largey, 2018). They argued such
publications were unlawful and prevented them from carrying out their role of law enforcement.
Several other states joined the lawsuit bringing the total number of states in the lawsuit to 19
(Largey, 2018).
Perspectives of Different Actors
The lawsuit brought by 8 U.S. states and District of Columbia seeking to prohibit
Defense Distributed from publishing online 3D printed gun designs has brought to the fore the
issue of the boundaries of First and Second Amendments. According to Cody Wilson, the
founder of Defense Distributed, preventing him from publishing online the blueprints for making
printable 3D guns is violating his First Amendment and Second Amendment rights which protect
freedom of speech and right to bear arms respectively (Feur, 2015). From his perspective, such
publication is no different from a person publishing a food recipe on the internet. Since, the right
to keep and bear arms is explicitly protected in the Second Amendment, Cody Williams believes
that there is no wrongdoing done by publishing the blueprints for making 3D printable guns
(Feur, 2015).
The attorneys general of 8 states and the District of Columbia that have brought a lawsuit
seeking a stop to the publication of the 3D gun blueprints hold different views. They agree that
while Defense Distributed is free to exercise First and Second Amendment rights, those rights

3D GUNS RESEARCH PAPER 4
cannot be exercised in a manner that significantly threatens public safety. They argue that it is
the role of states to enforce public safety laws and exercise police powers (Largey, 2018). As
part of these roles, states determine who can and cannot bear arms. For instance, children and
mentally ill people are prohibited by law from bearing arms (Largey, 2018). States exercise this
role by performing background checks on every person that seeks to buy arms. By making
designs for 3D printable guns easily available online, anyone who wishes to own a gun can
potentially do so. It, therefore, becomes impossible for states to perform their role of ensuring
that people deemed a threat to public safety do not own guns (Largey, 2018).
Secondly, the 3D guns make law enforcement difficult because they lack serial numbers.
It is, therefore, almost impossible to trace persons who use them for criminal activities.
Moreover, since they are made of plastic, they can easily be destroyed to conceal evidence of
wrongdoing by criminals. These factors make it hard for the government to carry out its role of
law enforcement (Largey, 2018).
Personal Interview with John Carter
The following is an interview of John Carter, a New York state resident regarding his views on
3D printable guns controversy.
Me: Recently there has been controversy surrounding 3D guns. Several states have gone to court
seeking to prevent Cody William and Defense Distributed, his organization that distributes
designs for making printable 3D guns online, from availing such plans online. Do you think the
states are right to prevent distribution of such gun designs online?
John Carter: I think the states are right in their quest to stop publication of such blueprints.
Making the blueprints easily available will lead to proliferation of plastic guns which will be a
major threat to public safety (Carter, 2019).

3D GUNS RESEARCH PAPER 5
Me: Don’t you think that preventing publication of the blueprints violates First and Second
Amendment rights of Cody Williams?
John Carter: Not at all. Freedom of speech and right to bear arms are not absolute. They cannot
be exercised in a manner that threatens public safety. Online publication of blueprints for 3D
printable guns will lead to production of many guns that can easily be concealed from metal
detectors and cannot be traced because they lack serial numbers. Such type of weapons are a
major threat to public safety. No one should use First or Second Amendment rights to defend
distribution of such weapons that will make us less safe (Carter, 2019).
Me: What do you propose should be done? Ban publication of these blueprints online?
John Carter: Banning of 3D gun blueprints from online publication will not help much. It is
almost impossible for the government to police the internet. In any case, the blueprints are
already online. I propose that the government bans 3D guns altogether. That will solve the
problem (Carter, 2019).
Me: Thank you for your time.
Analysis
In my view, Cody Wilson is wrong to suggest that the right to keep and bear arms is
unlimited. It is not. The government does not allow everyone to bear arms. Felons, children, and
persons suffering from mental illness, for instance, are not allowed to keep or bear arms. There is
also a limit to the types of arms that one can keep. Civilians cannot, for instance, keep military
grade weapons (Largey, 2018). The government, therefore, tries to balance between maintaining
the right of citizens to bear arms with its role of keeping the public safe by making sure that
those who bear arms pose no threat to public safety.

3D GUNS RESEARCH PAPER 6
Viewed in this manner, preventing publication of 3D gun designs does not constitute an
infringement by the government. As the entity charged with keeping public safety, the
government takes proactive measures that help to maintain public safety. One of these measures
is making it as hard as possible for criminals to access guns and, if they can access the guns,
making it as easy as possible to trace those guns. The exercise of these important roles does not
in any way constitute government infringement.
One of the reasons why the issue of 3D guns has generated far more controversy than real
guns is because there are real differences between them. Real metals are easy to trace (because
they have serial numbers), detect (because they are mainly made of metal), and conduct
background checks when persons are buying them. 3D guns do not have three attributes. As a
result, they pose much more significant threat to law enforcement than real guns.
It has also been argued that Cody Wilson is wrong to argue that publishing a software
code online is covered by First Amendment. In my view, there is no different between software
code and other forms of speech. They both communicate ideas. Wilson is, therefore, protected by
First Amendment. It is the contents that are objectionable and the government has a right to
regulate such content just the same way to prohibits publication of content deemed to be racist or
antisemitic. What this issue highlights is the need for government to update laws to reflect
technological changes that have occurred since most of the laws were passed. For instance, gun
laws should be updated to include 3D guns.

3D GUNS RESEARCH PAPER 7

References

Carter, J. (2019, October 2). Personal interview
CBS (July 30, 2018). Company agrees to block 3D-downloadable guns in Pennsylvania. CBC
Instructive Inc. Retrieved on 2 nd October, 2019 from
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cody-wilson-defense-distributed-agrees-to-block-
accessfrom-pennsylvania-to-3d-downloadable-guns/
Feur, A. (May 6, 2015). Cody Wilson, Who Posted Gun Instructions, Sues State Department.
New York Times. Retrieved on 2 nd October, 2019 from
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/us/cody-wilson-who-posted-gun-instructions-
online-sues-state-department.html?_r=0
Largey, M. (July 31, 2018). Blueprints for 3D Printable Guns Put On Hold. NPR. Retrieved on
2 nd October, 2019 on https://www.npr.org/2018/07/31/634369309/blueprints-for-3d-
printable-get-green-light-in-texas