# 3D Printing > 3D Printing News, Interviews & Editorials Supplied by 3DPrint.com >  California Arrests Two Women 3D Printing an AR-15 Lowe Receiver

## Brian_Krassenstein

An arrest warrant issued in an investigation which allegedly turned up a 3D printer which was in the process of creating the lower receiver for use in an AR-15 assault rifle. Deputy Brian Arias of the Chino Hills Police Department in California says the printer was on and in the process of making a lower receiver when officials raided the house where they say an identity theft ring was in operation. Investigators also say they also found a completed lower receiver loaded with live ammunition and a manufactured gun, also loaded, but this one with AirSoft ammunition. You can read the whole story here: http://3dprint.com/62597/ca-deputies-raid-3d-print-gun/


Below is a photo from the police raid in Chino, CA:

----------


## damauk

It looks like the 3D printer mentioned is in fact a 3D printer the photos in the link below, show a box for a Dremel Idea builder, a variant of the Flashforge dreamer, which can only print in PLA. So even though they were most likely printing a lower reciever, it probably wouldn't have lasted very long in actual use.

The search warrant was served at Chai’s house on the morning of April 28, 2015, and the deputies say they discovered the “3D printer” creating a lower receiver for an AR-15, which is an integral part of the assault rifle.

----------


## Wolfie

They did NOT arrest them for printing or making the lower receivers, they were arrested for suspected identity theft.  And according to current laws, they can't be prosecuted for building AR lowers unless they are already felons and can't legally possess firearms or they were manufacturing them for sale or distribution.  Making the lowers, having the lowers or assembled rifles, is NOT illegal for your own use anyway.  Selling or distributing them would be against the law.

The article says it may not be a 3D printer they confiscated.  It is:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nixle/upload...0319640-media1
Linked from:
http://nixle.com/alert/5403995/
(image 1 on the sidebar)

There is a Dremel 3D printer sitting right there in plain sight (at least the box for it) as well as spools of filament.

----------


## Feign

Yeah, it's a little missleading.  Like saying someone was arrested while walking down a street, and not mentioning that the person had also robbed someone.

At least in the article it does mention that they were running the identity theft ring, only leaving it out of the headline.

----------


## Wolfie

Yea, it really chaps me off when someone proselytizes things like this.  3D printed guns had ZERO to do with why they were arrested nor anything to do with the search or arrest warrant.  

The headline on the police site is "*Two Suspects Arrested in Chino Hills Following an Investigation into a Large-scale Credit Card and ID Theft Ring*".  For the love of God, why would 3Dprintforums change it to "*California Arrests Two Women 3D Printing an AR-15 Lowe Receiver*" for any other reason than to turn it into an pro/anti-gun 3D printing debate.

So can we knock off the anti-gun rhetoric around here please.  I like  the tech aspect here and is why I read the forums here.  I can get my  gun related stuff elsewhere.  Thought this forum was here to support 3D  printing, not try to tear it down with unnecessary drama like this,  especially with misleading headlines.

----------


## soofle616

> It looks like the 3D printer mentioned is in fact a 3D printer the photos in the link below, show a box for a Dremel Idea builder, a variant of the Flashforge dreamer, which can only print in PLA. So even though they were most likely printing a lower reciever, it probably wouldn't have lasted very long in actual use.
> 
> The search warrant was served at Chai’s house on the morning of April 28, 2015, and the deputies say they discovered the “3D printer” creating a lower receiver for an AR-15, which is an integral part of the assault rifle.


AR lowers are available commercially made from plastic. The upper receiver is the portion of the gun that is subject to abuse from temperature/pressure/impact/etc. The lower is primarily a place to put the grip and house the trigger. A printed lower may not last as long as a molded one but its not exactly going to fall apart the first time it's used.




> They did NOT arrest them for printing or making the lower receivers, they were arrested for suspected identity theft.  And according to current laws, they can't be prosecuted for building AR lowers unless they are already felons and can't legally possess firearms or they were manufacturing them for sale or distribution.  Making the lowers, having the lowers or assembled rifles, is NOT illegal for your own use anyway.  Selling or distributing them would be against the law.


Yes it is depending on the circumstances. The lower, by law, is the portion of the gun that is considered the "firearm" (why, i don't know) and as such must be serialized. Since it is a firearm and must be serialized, whoever is making it must have an manufacturer's ffl to produce it. They must also keep a log book of everything they've made which is subject to random audit by the atf. Also, depending on the state (not sure specifically about cali) even owning one is not legal depending on when it was made and how. CT for instance recently passed a new law banning all purchases of AR's. If you have them already you're fine but no one in the state can buy or even receive as a gift or inheritance any additional guns of that type.

I agree that the post is misleading and seems to be trying to create controversy where there really is none.

----------


## curious aardvark

> unnecessary drama like this,  especially with misleading headlines.


lol - have you not read ANY of the articles round here ? 

I get the feeling brian is a frustrated tabloid newspaper reporter. He only does sensationalist headlines :-)

I don't think it's an anti-gun stance - but sensational headlines will drive more traffic to the site. And after all 3dprint.com is a commercial entity, so sensationalism will sell more ad space. 
Although quite how many more russian dating sites there are left to sign up, I don't know :-)

----------


## Wolfie

> AR lowers are available commercially made from plastic. The upper receiver is the portion of the gun that is subject to abuse from temperature/pressure/impact/etc. The lower is primarily a place to put the grip and house the trigger. A printed lower may not last as long as a molded one but its not exactly going to fall apart the first time it's used.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is depending on the circumstances. The lower, by law, is the portion of the gun that is considered the "firearm" (why, i don't know) and as such must be serialized. Since it is a firearm and must be serialized, whoever is making it must have an manufacturer's ffl to produce it. They must also keep a log book of everything they've made which is subject to random audit by the atf. Also, depending on the state (not sure specifically about cali) even owning one is not legal depending on when it was made and how. CT for instance recently passed a new law banning all purchases of AR's. If you have them already you're fine but no one in the state can buy or even receive as a gift or inheritance any additional guns of that type.
> 
> I agree that the post is misleading and seems to be trying to create controversy where there really is none.


Some of that is factual, some is not.  

AR lowers are the part that they chose to serialize and therefore became the part that must be registered.  In general manufacturers tend to serialize the part that is in most control of the ammo.  In the case of a 1911, thats the frame.  I the case of an AR, its the lower which controls the ammo.  The AR is, or at least was, unique in that its a modular firearm far more-so that most of its predecessors and certainly far more than any others in its class at the time Armalite designed it.  With interchangeable stocks, barrels, uppers, triggers and grips, some part had to be designated as "the" weapon.  The lower seemed the most logical part based on historical serialization of the ammo control component.  Think of it another way.  What part is the serialized component of your car?  Its the frame.  Not the engine.  Not the body.  Not the seats.  Its the part onto which all the other parts are attached.  And thats the lower on the AR.

Yes, lowers can be purchased in composite molded plastic.  I have one.  Its lasted for thousands of rounds.  Its lighter and seems to take the beating of use better than aluminum.  A 3D printed one is not a homogenous build and not nearly as strong.  But, as you state, the lower does not need to contain any explosive gasses or pressure.  In the case of an AR, all of that occurs in the upper, specifically in the chamber on the end of the barrel, the gas feedback system and the bolt.  The lower is simply the frame on which the engine is mounted.  It does take a beating in the form of recoil since most of the recoil management of an AR base is in the lower, specifically the buffer tube located in the rear stock.  Its these forces that will tear up a weak 3D print, not the explosive pressures during the firing of the cartridge.


_"Since it is a firearm and must be serialized, whoever is making it must have an manufacturer's ffl to produce it."_
Not so.  It is only required to be serialized if it is made to be sold or transferred to another individual.  Its legal to manufacture them with or without serials for your own use.  You can NOT then later decide to sell or even give it away.  Its yours forever.  It requires no paperwork.  No serials.  And no need to notify ATF of its manufacture.  Also, an FFL can not manufacture weapons for sale.  They process and handle the transfers through background checks and paperwork appropriate to whats being transferred and the state in which it occurs.  To actually manufacture a firearm for resale, that requires a firearm manufacturers license, a whole different class of licensing.  For example, most Cabela's and Gander Mountains have FFLs on staff for proper transfer of new firearms.  They, however, can't whip out a piece of billet aluminum and mill you a custom AR lower in the back room.  That would require a manufacturing license.

_"CT for instance recently passed a new law banning all purchases of AR's.  If you have them already you're fine but no one in the state can buy or  even receive as a gift or inheritance any additional guns of that type."_
I wouldn't bet on it standing up to any constitutional scrutiny for very long.  
"_A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free  State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be  infringed._"
The CT law  by definition, is infringement.  Its already being challenged in several suits though some have already failed.

----------


## Wolfie

> lol - have you not read ANY of the articles round here ? 
> 
> *I get the feeling brian is a frustrated tabloid newspaper reporter. He only does sensationalist headlines :-)*
> 
> I don't think it's an anti-gun stance - but sensational headlines will drive more traffic to the site. And after all 3dprint.com is a commercial entity, so sensationalism will sell more ad space. 
> Although quite how many more russian dating sites there are left to sign up, I don't know :-)


Thats freaking funny!  Now that you said it out loud, some of the headlines now make perfect sense.

Maybe I will have to turn off my ad blocker and see how many dating sites are missing  :Wink:

----------


## Have Blue

> Its legal to manufacture them with or without serials for your own use.  You can NOT then later decide to sell or even give it away.


That's incorrect - you can transfer a gun that you've made yourself to another person.  The legality lies in the intent - if I build an AK with the intent to keep it for myself, but a year later I show it to my buddy and he offers me a price I can't refuse for it, it's legal for me to sell it to him.  However, if I were to build an AK with the intent to sell it to my buddy, that would be illegal and require me to have an FFL07.

However, I'm not sure if it's legal to transfer an unserialized gun to another person - best to engrave name, city, state, serial # on it before transferring.  (I do know that it is perfectly legal to have a gunsmith work on an unserialized homebuilt gun, though).

----------


## Wolfie

I was talking about an unserialized gun.  You can't manufacture one without a serial and then sell it or even give it away.  You can manufacture unserialized guns for your own use, perfectly legal.

I know of no loophole in the laws that would permit you to stick some random number on a gun and call it a serial number and make it legal to transfer a home built firearm.  To issue a serial on a gun, I am pretty darn certain you must be licensed to manufacture firearms.  If anyone could issue a legal serial, people would be tattooing home made guns with random numbers and make them legal to transfer.  Not happening.

With a manufacturing license, yes an individual could make a firearm and serialize it.  In fact you would be required to serialize it for any use other than your own or you would loose your license and probably spend quite a time in prison.  By serilizing a firearm, it would require the firearm to be registered with the ATF which would begin the paper trail for it.  After that the initial purchaser(recipient) can simply give or sell it without doing any paperwork or registering the sale/gift.  At least in most states.  This area gets fuzzy at the state level though.  And the laws differ between long guns and pistols.  And even within long guns there are variants where laws differ (SBR for example).

I have not verified but I believe that the restriction on transferring unserialized firearms also includes inheritance.  That means when I die, any non-serialized firearms I have made are technically not part of my estate that would be transferred to my inheritors.  They would have to be turned over to ATF for disposal.  I am also pretty sure they can't be placed into a trust either in an attempt to circumvent those restrictions.  Again, I have not verified these assumptions with a lawyer.

----------


## Have Blue

> I know of no loophole in the laws that would permit you to stick some random number on a gun and call it a serial number and make it legal to transfer a home built firearm.  To issue a serial on a gun, I am pretty darn certain you must be licensed to manufacture firearms.  If anyone could issue a legal serial, people would be tattooing home made guns with random numbers and make them legal to transfer.  Not happening.


By the ATF's own website (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/fir...echnology.html), you can add a random serial number to a gun you built yourself:

_Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs).  However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm  with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is  lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27  CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future._

As to whether or not a firearm must have a serial to transfer it, *I think the key in the above quote is the use of 'should' rather than 'must'.

*Edit to above statement - I found this FTB letter which does say 'must'.  In the case of inheritance, I would think marking the firearm with the maker's info (even post-mortem) would be sufficient, but I suppose that specific case would require another FTB determination letter.

----------


## Wolfie

You are mixing apples and oranges.

From the page you quoted from, the title of that section is..:
*Q: Is it legal to assemble a firearm from commercially available parts kits that can be purchased via internet or shotgun news?*

That section pertains to ASSEMBLING a firearm from pre-manufactured parts.  3D printing is actually manufacturing the parts by any definition I can think of.  Different scenario than what the article refers to.

And, by chance did you read the VERY FIRST sentence in the article you quoted from?  Here it is:



> For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, *but not for sale or distribution.*


By the way, the ATF bolded those words.  Not me.

That statement verifies what I have said all along.  You can make a gun.  You can't then sell or give it away unless its properly marked and serialized.

----------


## Have Blue

That section refers to assembling parts from a parts kit, where the user has to supply their own receiver (which they have to 'manufacture').

And yes, I did read the very first sentence - you may not make a firearm _for_ sale or distribution - you can only make one _for_ yourself.  That is the 'intent'.  However, you can then later on (a rule of thumb I've heard is at least a year) sell it if you wanted - the original 'intent' to make it solely for yourself has not changed.

Note the second paragraph of that FTB letter I linked to:

_Also, for your information, a nonlicensee may manufacture a semiautomatic rifle for his or her own personal use.  As long as the firearm remains in the custody of the person who manufactured it, the firearm need not be marked with a serial number or name and location of the manufacturer.  However, if the firearm is transferred to another party at some point in the future, the firearm must be marked in accordance with the provisions set forth in 27 CFR 478.92 (formerly 178.92)._

----------

