Now Reading
Gun Rights Hacktivists to Fab 3D-Printed Guns at State Capitol

Gun Rights Hacktivists to Fab 3D-Printed Guns at State Capitol

by Giulio PriscoJanuary 6, 2015

Come And Take Texas (CATI) invites everyone concerned about gun rights to attend the event being held on January 13th at the Austin, Texas Capitol. From 8am-6pm attendees will be visiting all representatives to express their desire to have The Constitutional Carry Bill HB 195 passed. And staying true to being the front line for gun rights, CATI has purchased the Ghost Gunner machine and will be manufacturing firearms on location at the Capitol.

Members of CATI plan to use the Ghost Gunner, made by Defense Distributed, to literally manufacture AR-15 lowers on site. Event details can be found at the CATI Facebook page.

Firearms that Can Be Downloaded and Reproduced by Anyone with a 3D Printer

Ghost GunnerDefense Distributed is an online, open-source organization that designs firearms that may be downloaded from the Internet and printed with a 3D printer. Among the organization’s goals is to develop and freely publish firearms-related design schematics that can be downloaded and reproduced by anyone with a 3D printer. In May 2013 Defense Distributed made public the 3D printable files (STL files) for the world’s first fully 3D printable gun.

Ghost Gunner is a miniature computer numerically controlled (CNC) machine designed to automatically manufacture publicly created designs with nearly zero user interaction. No prior CNC knowledge or experience is required to manufacture from design files. The machine includes gshield 3 axis motion hardware, a grbl g-code parser and motion controller, and an Arduino microcontroller.

All GhostGunner schematics and design files will be published into the public domain.Defense Distributed’s first design is the venerable AR-15 lower receiver. Ghost Gunner automatically finds and aligns your 80% lower receiver to the machine, with simple installation instructions, point and click software and all required tools.

Just follow a few simple instructions to mount your 80% lower receiver, tighten a couple screws (with simple tools we provide), and on day one, Ghost Gunner can help you legally manufacture unserialized firearms in the comfort of your own home.

As shipped, Ghost Gunner can manufacture any mil-spec 80% AR-15 lower receiver that already has the rear take down well milled out. Lowers with non-mil-spec trigger guards that are otherwise mil-spec are also compatible. Defense Distributed recommends using the 7075 Ares Armor Raw 80% Lower AR-15 Billet, available for purchase on the Ghost Gunner site.

Defense Distributed has been predominantly represented in public since July 2012 by Cody Wilson, who is described as a founder and spokesperson. Wilson is also a co-founder of Dark Wallet, a project that adds layers of privacy and anonymity to Bitcoin transactions. As his trajectory shows, Wilson is a staunch crypto-anarchist who wants to use emerging technologies such as 3D printing and Bitcoin to disrupt “the system.” He recently announced that he will run for a board seat on the Bitcoin Foundation for no other reason than to disband the organization from within.

Also read: Cody Wilson: I Will Wrestle the Bitcoin Foundation to its Suicide

Legally, Defense Distributed is a pending 501(c)(3) status nonprofit corporation in the state of Texas. The specific purposes for which this corporation is organized are:

To defend the human and civil right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court; to collaboratively produce, publish, and distribute to the public without charge information and knowledge related to the digital manufacture of arms.

Images from CATI and Defense Distributed.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by us. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
What's your reaction?
Love it
Hate it
  • MrFox

    What an idiot’s. I understand the NRA promoting guns because they make lots of money with it. But these guys are just stupid. When will they realize that more ways to kill people faster will just get more people killed.

    Like another recent incident where a mom got killed by her 2-year old son. Moms like that are not in risk of being robbed and if they are, the gun is more likely to be used against them than help them.

    • lkcl

      whilst i am not really hugely comfortable with the idea of people – any people – having the means to kill others, i am also keenly aware that it doesn’t require a gun to be a killer. it requires that one merely has the *desire* to kill: the means by which that is achieved really does not come into the equation. mrfox: you could have said the same thing about knives, or even about hammers: there was a story a while back about a three year old child who hit his father over the head with a hammer after watching a tom and jerry cartoon because that’s what he saw on the TV, so he copied it.

      tools require us to act responsibly! what on earth was that mum thinking *not* having that *loaded* weapon securely locked in in a firearms box or a safe, for goodness sake!
      so it doesn’t actually matter what the tool is: we have to act responsibly around the tools that we make, and take responsibility for our thoughts and the actions that we follow from our thoughts.

      coming back to guns: if you have seen “bowling for columbine” you will know that the basis of the documentary is that across canada there is a THIRTY TO ONE ratio of *guns* to *people*. not people to guns, but guns to *people*. yet in the same year that the documentary was made, whilst there were *two* gun-related murders in the *whole* of canada, across in detroit, clearly visible across the bay from where michael stood as he was narrating, i forget how many thousands of people had been murdered, but the city’s medical staff are so used to dealing gunshot wounds that they are drafted to help during wars in which the US finds itself involved.

      again: in switzerland, every single person (with an IQ over 75, it has to be said) is eligible for mandatory draft in the swiss army. when their training is over, they are sent home *with their weapons*, and, i believe i am right in thinking that they are legally required to continue to practice with them, periodically. and, funnily enough, you do not hear stories of high murder rates in switzerland, nor of significant numbers of gun-related accidents or incidents, either.

      then, also, we find that there are people who receive training (martial arts) in the use of ordinary items to kill or maim, and there are some who receive training in ways to kill that do not even involve tools other than their own body. it has to be said that usually their trainers drum into those people who seek out and actively pursue such knowledge that they are to be *responsible* with that knowledge. so this particular class of people is, generally speaking, an exception (even in the US) as the value of life, and defending it, is discussed during training and is impressed upon them.

      it would seem, then, that when it comes to taking responsibility for the use of tools there is something terribly and desperately wrong with the american psyche. there are other countries as well where the exact same thing may be said, but none of them with the same level of technological advancement nor such a prominent influential *leading* role on our world stage.

      so i say that as background because i want you to understand that i have deep reservations about *anyone* having access to weaponry, especially without taking responsibility that comes with having such tools.

      now with that as background, i can make the point clearly, which is this: that these people are in part being highly irresponsible but at the same time are being exceptionally responsible. the first part is in assuming that those people with “easy” access to weapons will act responsibly. the second part is that they, themselves, are acting from a sense of duty and responsibility for their country. they recognise that the founders of the USA constitution were extremely fore-sighted people, who designed the constitution to deal with situations of tyranny. as such, i believe that when it comes to the weapons that *they* carry, that they take extremely good care and are exceptionally responsible when dealing with them. they *talk*, and they don’t just talk, they have a logical and legitimate reason for maintaining access to weapons, and they are happy to discuss that. and that *is* responsible.

      now, what would make all the difference here is if they made sure that the “maker” videos also included a short part about *why* they were doing what they are doing. this is *very important*, because if they *merely* provide access to 3D printed weapons, then those people who make them will do so for *their own* reasons… or just for the sheer irresponsible hell of it.

      does that make any kind of sense?

      • Emilie

        There is not a 30:1 Gun to People ratio in Canada, that’s idiotic. It’s 30:100 (as opposed to 90:100 in the United States) and there are strict registration requirements, particularly for handguns, which require you to belong to a shooting club, have reasons for owning firearms for hunting, etc. Your Switzerland example is very poor as Switzerland and the US are very different places in terms of geography, history, population, etc.

        By your argument Americans are somehow extremely motivated to kill people, in ways that other countries are not, and it just happens that there are tons of guns lying around. Most aggressive confrontations in western societies do not end in death, unless firearms are involved, even though it is indeed possible to kill people with other items. I’d prefer a 90:100 ratio of hammers to people than guns.

        • Todor_G

          Every single discussion about guns turns into a statistical argument. Here’s a different perspective:

          The point of a firearm is to empower people like you and I. We aim to avoid physical confrontation like the plague – It’s primitive and brute. Unfortunately my reasonable and logical argument as to why I should hold onto my wallet and not share my girlfriend with some thugs generally loses to getting punched in the face.

          I can’t fight my way out of a paper bag, so I sure as hell don’t want to take my chances in a “fair fist fight” against somebody who speaks “violence” fluently.

          From your name I am guessing you are a female. Imagine a 200 pound male was trying to hit you with a hammer? What tool would you prefer to have at your disposal to defuse the situation and walk away unharmed? A phone to call the police with, a hammer of your own or a gun?

          Simply – the gun makes it easy for normal people to even the playing field against those who prefer to or use physical force instead of reason while interacting with us. it is the last option, but it’s an option I’d rather have.

        • lkcl

          emile, i appreciate the correction, i have been quoting the wrong statistic for years so genuinely thank you. regarding your summary “americans are somehow extremely motivated to kill people”…. not exactly, that is misleading, as it would mean that there is a substantial percentage of the population of america who think, for a great deal of time, about *actively* going out and murdering someone. that is *not* what i implied.

          to make it clearer than by implication (in which there were several points), i believe that the society and social pressures of living within the united states – the stress that comes with the modern way of life of today – pushes people to the absolute edge of the limit of their minds and beyond. and that, when they happen to also have access to weaponry, that’s when you end up with tragic consequences. there are variants on that, as well, where societal norms have simply… broken down: areas where you have people going round on pathological shooting sprees and videotaping it (as happened about 7 or 8 years ago)

          so that’s what i meant: that there is something desperately wrong with the american psyche, which cannot ever be blamed on the *guns themselves*.

          anyway, that was not the main point i wanted to make: it was that *despite* those dangers and risks i still agree with the goals that these people are doing (providing access to weapons), yet paradoxically because of the fact that they make it so easy for *anyone* who may *not* necessarily agree with their goals to gain access to weaponry, that i *do* find to be irresponsible of them. but… what can you do?

      • MrFox

        So the baby had the *desire* to kill? Guns make killing easier = more people end up dead.

        Look at the statistics of countries with a culture like the US that banned guns: Belgium and Australia. It made a huge difference.

        • Cytotoxic

          No it didn’t. Those countries had low murder rates before banning guns. Britain only saw more violence after banning handguns. An armed society is a safe society.

          • MrFox

            It’s not a magic trick or dogma that always works, you have to be smart about it. I’m just giving examples to show it can make a difference.

            Your dogma of arms providing safety however has been proven to be false. Many times. But you just keep holding on to the dogma, are you religious as well?

    • Agent Smith

      That mom was carrying a loaded firearm with the safety off, do you think she was following the rules? NO, her mistake was costly.

      So we should remove knives like the UK also?

      • MrFox

        ‘her mistake’, the more people carry a gun, the more often such mistakes are made. Blaming the victim does not excuse the underlying problem.

        • Agent Smith

          No, thats like saying we need to ban hammers because they kill more than guns. That is a true statement, they actually do kill more than all guns combined. It is negligence that killed her is my point, not the tool. Don’t get reality twisted.

  • TheGCU

    Anyone can print a gun in the comfort of their own home, with no mental health checks, background checks, or serial numbers to keep track of where these guns are.

    Yeah, this is gonna end well.

    • BieberHole69

      BREAKING NEWS : All criminals will now stop getting background checks and mental health checks before acquiring guns.

    • Agent Smith

      LOL!!! Keeping track? You understand that is highly unconstitutional? Please learn your rights before speaking on the matter.

    • Travis Washam

      it appears to me the only thing you are printing is the lower reciever for the weapon.. correct me if im wrong…. if that is the case, it takes a lot more to shoot someone than a lower receiver for an AR-15. You could however beat someone to death with the lower receiver, but then you might as well have just walked outside and picked up a brick.

  • brioche

    I just don’t understand why with all of the gun violence in this country there are people trying to make it easier to obtain such weapons. Eventually someone with malicious intent will start producing these guns not for self defense but to harm others.

    • BieberHole69


      You mean like how people that want to commit crimes with guns will somehow acquire guns?

      This argument is old and tired.

      Please start to use your brain and realize that criminals commit crimes because they are criminals. It doesn’t matter if you are printing a gun or buying one in a bag from a guy in the alleyway.

      It’s not like criminals are lining up for background checks to buy guns anyway.

      jeez… please think before you say things.

    • Lcstyle

      You don’t understand it because you’re an ignorant idiot. That’s a redux of about 10 pages of back and forth discussion with statist sheeple like yourself.

      • Day

        I can’t understand why you love/hate guns people don’t get together and work something out. There are good points to both sides of the argument. People kill people with or without guns but the guns make it easier.

        • Travis Washam

          knives make it easier to kill people, cars do too, as do baseball bats, and rocks (lets not forget how much easier it is to beat someone to death with a rock rather than a fist)….. people that are killers are going to kill, whether they use a gun, knife, or a hand made shank carved from a toothbrush. Bad people are just that… BAD. And if you disarm yourself you make the bad people more powerful than everone else. Who wants to give a rapist or murderer the upperhand? At least now, as it sits, there is always that thought that a mugger may just possibly try and rob someone that is carrying a weapon to defend themselves. Take that “second thought” out of the equation and your crimes are going to go up.

          • Day

            I believe a gun is ultimate tool for scaring off would-be assaults but lets’s not fall back on the ‘you can kill people with rocks argument’ the gun was made specifically to cause harm, kill indeed. That said a gun removes the killer form their action: A knife can kill but it’s a more ‘hands-on’ visceral experience where are pulling a trigger is point and click. Does this make the act harder? I don’t know. I just think that 30k gun deaths a year (500 accidental) makes me think something is wrong.

          • Travis Washam

            You comment seems as if it were spoken by someone that’s never had a class in self defense, firearm training, or a concealed carry class… I mean that with all due respect though. It just sounds uneducated is a couple way… For one, you are not legally allowed to try and scare off someone with a gun.. Ever. Once you bring your gun out you have excellated any level of force to deadly force. There are many levels of force and until you are met with deadly force, you are not legally allowed to use deadly force in return. If you do pull a gun and shoot someone that has not used deadly force, you then, become the aggressor and all of a sudden you become the “bad guy”.. I understand this, and I would NEVER show my firearm unless it was completely necessary to protect my life or the live of another.

            Saying a knife is more hands on is also IMHO an inaccurate statement (also, with all due respect). Even if you feel threatened, you can not shoot someone that’s 40 ft away, not 30, very questionably 20 ft away… Someone needs to be on your person within a 10ft window to be an unquestionable threat to your life. This is pretty “hands on” by your example of being up close and personal… Keep in mind, if a man is shaking a knife and saying he’s going to kill me at 30 ft away he is just about at the level of a real treat, but let’s face it, who’s he gonna stab 30 ft away. Now if he says that and starts charging, then he becomes an immediate threat and the use of deadly force can be called upon to protect yourself or the life of another. However…. If he pulls a gun on you this 100% puts him as the aggressor and he has already taken this case to deadly force and can then be met with deadly force even from 30 feet away to protect yourself or the life of another.

            I will not argue that a firearm is n effecting killing tool. I will however argue that guns kill people… I’ve not had any of my loaded and chambered pistols run into my room and shoot at me or anyone else. I’ve never had a knife open itself and try to stab me. Bad people kill people, and they will do it by any means possible if they set out to do so. My argument that is solely that the innocent must be able to at least match the force of the aggressor. Bad guys will get guns, and they will use guns, if you take legal guns out of the hands of responsible people, you only give criminals the upper hand.

          • Day

            I agree that people are the problem too, or at least part of the problem (guns, laws and society are contributors too IMHO). And agree I have never even touched a live gun (and i’m 40) but when a friend of mine opens his car trunk (for some shopping) and shows me his gun lock box I just looked at him and thought he was crazy AND why would you ever need a gun in such inconvenient place? Lastly, in the spirit of full disclosure, I live in NZ (originally from the UK). I wasn’t trying to pick a fight, I have a lot of respect for the US but I guess I have no real stake in the argument.

    • SuperMammal

      Well you learned to use the internet, maybe one day other things will begin to make sense to you too.

  • asdf

    “I think these things [firearms] were invented by Satan himself, for they can’t be defended against with (ordinary) weapons and fists. All human strength vanishes when confronted with firearms. A man is dead before he sees what’s coming.”

    • Don’t be stupid… Satan invented the Rock so that Cain could kill Able. I think we should start banning rocks.

    • Joe Dirtey

      guns allow the 100 lb woman to fight off a 250 lb man (or 100 lb man vs 250 lb woman… not sexist here). That is a good thing, not a bad thing as that quote would suggest.

      • Day

        i really am ambivalent about this issue so don’t take me as a detractor. But i’d be interested to see how your example in numbers (ie successful uses of gun defence) compares to gun enforced robbery etc.

  • Nice publicity stunt, Cody Wilson.