Gun manufacturers are explicitly immune from liability for the actions of their consumers, under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
The only reason this became law is because so many people tried going after the gun manufacturers.
With all the terror attacks in Europe using trucks as weapons, people might start going after the truck manufacturers. Then the EU will pass some law saying truck manufacturers are not responsible for people using them as weapons.
Cause and effect. It's sad, but some people try to blame the existence of the weapons. As if anything can't be a weapon! You can pick up a rock and attack with deadly force. Who do you sue then? God? This law exists because some people will always try to shift the blame.
The EU will not pass the truck-related law, because it is not how law works in the EU.
In the US (common law) high-profile cases and precedents are the source of the law. This brings more power to the people, but also makes the legal system infinitely more complicated.
In the EU, we have civil law, which relies on first principles and lawmakers authority to interpret existing laws, with much less attention given to individual cases. This simplifies the law and filters away some insane legal tests like this one, at the cost of giving more legal power to the government and less to the people.
Right. That's why the Comission is already, after ONE case, proclaiming that it is unacceptable that WhatsApp encrypted with no police access, and they are going to prepare a directive to address it. Your view of EU is idealistic and at odds with how it really works.
> Gun manufacturers are explicitly immune from liability for the actions of their consumers, under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Which was only lobbied for by the ggun lobby because generally-applicable legal liability principles exposed them to liability for certain of those actions.
Handgun manufacturers are strictly controlled by the state: you'll need a licence at the very least. If you produced handguns in the garage and one accidentally got out, you probably wouldn't be so surprised to see the FBI at your doorstep.
You actually can manufacture guns in your own home for your own use completely legally in the US. Just for your own use though you can't ever sell or gift them. There's a whole market that sells 80% complete billets with most of the more difficult parts complete such that all someone needs is a drill press to complete the firearm.
What you're referring to are called "80% lowers" and they're the part of an AR-15 rifle that contain the serial number. AR-15s come in a lot of parts, so the "lower" is considered the actual gun that has a serial number and requires a license. So manufacturers are selling machined lowers that are 80% complete, considering this as just a piece of metal, not a gun. The ATF has already raided at least one maker of these parts and taken their customer list.
Personally I think it's a grey area. At what point do you go from "it's a bunch of metal, screws, and springs" to "firearm". It's the sand hill paradox. And if you want to stay out of jail, stay away from these. All it takes is a zealous DA who decides it's a violation of federal fireams law and suddenly your life is hell.
There are other 80% complete frames available and have been for a long time. The most popular are the AR-15 and 1911. It seems like the line is fairly well established. There are other issues like felons and other people who can't have a gun using this to get around the background checks that can lead to raids and questions about the makers of these billets but in general if you can own a gun you're perfectly safe to buy an 80% billet and machine it out yourself.
Are you talking about the CNC shop that was trying to act like just starting or touching the machine was enough to count as their customers manufacturing the lower instead of the company? That's a whole other issue with just what does it mean for a person to have manufactured the weapon and I'm pretty comfortable saying that company was well on the wrong side of that line.
For most 80%s they're pretty clearly not a gun because there's absolutely no way to use this [1] without modification and assemble it into a gun. This basic design has been around for a looong time.
It's not that much of a grey area. The ATF has published regulations that require the fire control control pocket be created before a lower receiver is legally considered a firearm. The people who have gotten in trouble here have created lowers where the fire control pocket has been started in some way. In one example, a company created a "biscuit" of one color plastic in the shape that needed to be milled out and then shot the rest of the lower around that biscuit. The ATF argued that the fire control pocket was created in this process and the end user was just removing a plug that was inserted into that pocket. In other cases, the manufacturers made index markings showing where to mill things out.
If you stick to an 80% where the fire control pocket has not been started and you select a lower that requires a separate jig to mill, you'll be fine.
Under federal law, they can be bought and sold like any other gun.
The issue is that you need a federal firearms manufacturing license to be in the business of manufacturing firearms. The occasional sale of homemade firearms you no longer want is legal as long as it's infrequent and you're not manufacturing the weapons to make money.
That I'm not entirely sure on and a cursory search doesn't bring up anything helpful. It probably gets passed down like other effects? But that's just a guess.
We don't need a metaphor to understand this news story. A guy made a convenient remote access program. He released it into a lightweight "hacker" forum. He tried to prevent people from using it in ways he didn't like which includes criminal ways. The FBI wants to nail him more because they can reach him than because they truly believe he did anything wrong. There are grounds for debate depending on how you weight the facts we've been given, to say nothing of facts we don't have. Etc. These metaphors are not accomplishing anything.
An axe is a multipurpose tool, and I think we agree that its main purpose is chopping wood (and/or wild wood, also known as trees), not robbing liquor stores.
The question here would be: what was the tools' main purpose? Is it closer to a gun, which are mainly designed to make living things less alive[1], or closer to an axe, which people use all the time in law-abiding ways? Because the first one has tons of restrictions (and penalties) that the second one doesn't.
Of course he'll say "I manufactured and sold tools", the prosecution will say "he manufactured and sold guns", and the courts will decide. While I'm not saying he's definitely guilty, I think the case is nuanced enough to warrant a trial.
[1] Yes, I know most gun owners go to shooting ranges instead of robbing liquor stores. That doesn't change what guns were designed for.
RATs are also commonly used for IT support and law enforcement.
That's a damn good point. I bet if his defense team looked hard enough, they could find an RFP/RFQ out there somewhere, where the FBI themselves were seeking to purchase something like NanoCore. Hell, I'd go one further and suggest that in discovery they ask the FBI for a list of any RAT tools they use, including NanoCore!
Proving that the FBI themselves are a customer for tools like (and possibly including) NanoCore should be enough for any half-intelligent judge to throw the case out without further discussion.
The point I was responding to was relying on the status of firearms as items whose manufacture is already severely restricted by law; on the other hand, as with axes, you don't need a license to make software.
And that type of marketing makes a gun illegal anyway. Look up the "street sweeper" 12 gauge. Not a very capable or dangerous gun, quite terrible actually.
I think that's a good analogy.