comment: >
  
  So they should just not even try to fix regulation on lethal weapons?
  Solving one problem causes others to arise, you then solve those too. It's not insurmountable.
context: This is a really good thing.
  I own guns and I built a Glock knockoff.  It's stupid easy, and all the parts for a functional gun were mailed to my house.  Took less than an hour to do it all. >
  
  
  This is a really good thing.
  
  It's a largely useless thing.  3D printing exists and will make perfectly serviceable receivers for guns. >
  
  3D printing a handgun is currently a lot more involved than mail ordering a Polymer 80 kit and removing a few bits of plastic.  Of course this ruling won’t completely prevent illegal possession of handguns, but it will reduce distribution to people who are prohibited from possessing firearms.  If 3D printing becomes cheap and easy enough for anybody to do it, then that’s a different issue to address. >
  
  Lol. Printing frames is very easy and requires no more computer proficiency or knowledge than anyone under 40 already has.
  Edit: it can all be done on a $99 printer with a $20 roll of filament. >
  
  While 3D printing isn't terribly insurmountable, it is still a way, way higher bar than a hand drill and some files.  In the case of a Glock, you still need to purchase or fabricate the metal rails and the rest of the parts, even on a 3D printed frame.  After your stuff comes in, you can either 3D print and fuck around with getting the right 3D model, waiting many hours to fuck up the first print, repeating multiple times, and finally maybe getting something that will work, or you can buy the 80% lower and be committing your crime in a little less than an hour.  I've done both (well, not the crime part. I legally register any guns I build like my state requires me to do) and to call the two paths equivalent is silly. >
  
  I would say this is generational. My nephew (11) can design things in cad but is scared of a power tool and wouldn’t know what to do with one if I forced him to learn. >
  
  Ah, the good ‘ol issue-sidestep. A classic, to be sure, but do you have any fresher moves? >
  
  Ok, so where is the line on what is/isn't a receiver now? 80% complete used to be the threshold. Do shovels and billet aluminum need serial numbers and background checks now? >
  
  Read the letter.  As they point out, 80% was never the threshold.  That’s something the market came up with, not the government.  ATF explains their ruling as to where the threshold is in the letter. It basically revolves around what ‘readily’ means and it’s not some simple line like X%.  They’re going to take the same approach they did for the AWB.  If you have a product you wish to sell, send it in for classification and they’ll decide case by case if it is a firearm. >
  
  80% was the threshold the ATF themselves came up with and now they want to change it. They don’t explain it they just say “readily” as you said. Readily can be interpreted as a block of aluminum and a cnc machine. Or spool of plastic and 3d printer. >
  
  Yeah, that's why they're doing it case by case. >
  
  They are months behind on doing their real job of approving NFA items. Why are they taking on more and more things when they’re in trouble for not meeting their 90 day turn around times on their backlog? They can’t possibly do this without n a case by case basis and also that opens it up for imposing these laws unjustly on minorities and not rich white people as they have in the past. The NFA was enacted just so that poor blacks couldn’t get those types of guns.