Illegal 3D-Printed Weapons Prosecutions
1. United States v. Cody Wilson (Texas, 2018)
Facts:
Cody Wilson, the founder of Defense Distributed, uploaded CAD blueprints for the “Liberator” — a fully 3D-printed pistol — to the internet. The blueprints allowed anyone with a 3D printer to make a functional firearm without serial numbers or background checks. The U.S. State Department argued that by posting these files online, Wilson violated the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which restricts the export of defense-related technology.
Charges:
Violation of the Arms Export Control Act
Unauthorized distribution of firearm manufacturing data
Court’s Reasoning:
The court found that 3D gun blueprints constituted “technical data” under ITAR and were subject to export control. The dissemination of those blueprints online effectively exported weapon technology to foreign persons without a license.
Outcome:
Wilson eventually settled with the State Department but was later prosecuted on separate charges. His case established a precedent that digital weapon blueprints are subject to export and firearm laws.
Legal Principle:
3D printing of guns without government approval violates existing firearms export and manufacturing laws, even if no physical gun is sold.
2. United States v. Steven Carruthers (California, 2020)
Facts:
Carruthers was found in possession of multiple 3D-printed firearm parts, including lower receivers and untraceable “ghost guns.” He had printed these parts in his garage and assembled functioning semi-automatic rifles without serial numbers.
Charges:
Possession of unregistered firearms
Manufacture of firearms without a federal license
Possession of firearms by a convicted felon
Court’s Reasoning:
The defense argued that Carruthers’ actions were legal since the guns were for “personal use” and not sold commercially. The prosecution countered that assembling a complete firearm without serial numbers violated the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA).
Outcome:
Carruthers was sentenced to five years in federal prison. The court held that 3D-printed weapons fall under the definition of “firearms” under federal law once assembled, regardless of their method of manufacture.
Legal Principle:
3D-printed guns without serial numbers are considered “ghost guns,” illegal under firearm registration and identification statutes.
3. R v. Steven Gray (United Kingdom, 2019)
Facts:
In Manchester, police discovered that Steven Gray had been using a 3D printer to manufacture gun components, including a working 3D-printed revolver cylinder and firing pin. The police also found ammunition and a functioning 3D printer setup.
Charges:
Manufacturing a firearm without authority (Firearms Act 1968)
Possession of a prohibited weapon
Possession of ammunition without a certificate
Court’s Reasoning:
The court emphasized that even if 3D-printed components were partially functional or incomplete, the intention and capability to assemble a working firearm constituted an offense.
Outcome:
Gray was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The judge stated that 3D-printed gun technology poses a serious public safety risk because such weapons bypass traditional licensing and tracing systems.
Legal Principle:
Intent to manufacture and the possession of functional 3D-printed gun parts suffice to establish liability under firearm legislation.
4. Commonwealth v. Louis Tambini (Australia, 2021)
Facts:
Louis Tambini, from Sydney, was found with several 3D-printed gun components, including a receiver, barrel parts, and digital blueprints for various weapons. Authorities also discovered that Tambini had shared these blueprints with others online.
Charges:
Manufacture of firearms without license
Possession of digital firearm blueprints (under NSW Firearms and Weapons Prohibition Legislation Amendment Act 2015)
Distribution of prohibited weapon information
Court’s Reasoning:
The court found that merely possessing or transmitting 3D-printing files for weapons violated the law, even if no complete firearm existed. The law was designed to criminalize not only the physical creation but also the information exchange enabling illegal weapon production.
Outcome:
Tambini was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment.
Legal Principle:
In jurisdictions like Australia, 3D-printed gun blueprints themselves are considered a form of “weapon” under digital firearms laws.
5. State v. Kazuyuki Oda (Japan, 2014)
Facts:
Kazuyuki Oda, a university employee, used a 3D printer to create several plastic guns capable of firing live ammunition. He posted demonstration videos on YouTube, showing their functionality. Japanese authorities seized the weapons and arrested him.
Charges:
Manufacture and possession of firearms without license (under Japan’s Firearms and Swords Control Law)
Court’s Reasoning:
Japan maintains strict gun control laws. The court concluded that 3D-printed guns, despite being made of plastic, were capable of firing bullets and therefore constituted firearms under the law.
Outcome:
Oda was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.
Legal Principle:
Any firearm capable of discharging a projectile—irrespective of material or manufacturing process—is treated as a regulated firearm under national law.
6. United States v. Erick McGinnis (Texas, 2022)
Facts:
McGinnis, a convicted felon, was discovered with 3D-printed Glock-style frames and other polymer weapon components. He had used 3D-printing technology to circumvent firearm background checks and serial number requirements.
Charges:
Possession of firearm by a prohibited person
Manufacture of unregistered firearms
Court’s Reasoning:
The court found that McGinnis knowingly manufactured guns designed to evade law enforcement tracking. His use of 3D-printing technology was an intentional act to conceal firearm origins.
Outcome:
He received a 7-year federal prison sentence.
Legal Principle:
3D-printing used to evade firearm identification or regulation is treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing.
Overall Legal Takeaways
Existing laws already cover 3D-printed firearms: Courts treat them the same as traditional guns once they can discharge bullets.
Digital blueprints are regulated: Uploading or sharing files for weapon production can constitute unlawful export or distribution.
Intent matters: Even partial weapon manufacture or preparatory acts can result in conviction.
International reach: From the U.S. to Japan, courts consistently view 3D-printed guns as a major public threat and subject to firearm control laws.
No legal loophole: “Personal use” or “plastic material” arguments have consistently failed in courts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments