August 1, 2018 marked the beginning of the era of the downloadable gun. It is on this day that Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson intended to publish digital 3D gun blueprints online, again. His first attempt to distribute blueprints in 2013 was blocked by the federal government, which feared foreign access to these files. He first published his design, the Liberator, on defcad.org, a now-defunct file-sharing site, and it reached hundreds of thousands of downloads within months. Guns like the Liberator escape conventional detection methods since they are printed with hard plastics instead of metal. Furthermore, these home-crafted guns lack serial numbers, which severely limits the ability of the government to enforce gun ownership laws. These so-called “ghost guns” have alarmed the public in light of the recent rise in mass shootings and firearm incidents.
           

The prospect of a world with plastic but lethal weapons is daunting, but it is a new challenge society must face.

The specifics of the 2018 settlement - 
Using the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, a Cold War law intended to control exports of military commodities, Secretary of State John Kerry filed a restraining order in early 2013, demanding Defense Distributed to immediately cease distribution of the blueprints on the internet. (Zhou). 
            

However, as a result of Wilson’s lawsuit, in July 2018, the State Department and the Second Amendment Foundation, which represented Defense Distributed, reached a settlement regarding 3D weapon blueprints, and allowed Defense Distributed to freely publish its designs on the internet on the grounds of free speech (SAF).
            "Under this settlement," SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb noted, "the government will draft and pursue regulatory amendments that eliminate ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) control over the technical information at the center of this case. They will transfer export jurisdiction to the Commerce Department, which does not impose prior restraint on public speech. That will allow Defense Distributed and SAF to publish information about 3D technology.”
            

To ease restrictions on commercially available weapons, the Trump administration shifted the jurisdiction of certain firearms to the Commerce Department, seeking to increase limitations on military grade weapons and make it harder to obtain them (Rivas and Finnegan). Through this change, the Commerce Department settled the free speech issue, as the Department ruled in favor of Wilson.
           

This disregard for gun safety is hidden under the guise of free speech and has had several implications. These “Ghost Guns” have been used in violent situations, including mass shooting, and are becoming more readily available to the public by the day. 

Gun data as protected speech - 
           The First Amendment declares that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Yet, certain forms of speech, such as the use of words which may incite physical violence or retaliation by the masses, are not permitted (HG). 
           

Some view Wilson’s gun blueprints as an example of these banned “fighting words”. In a public statement, Wilson declared: "I think the state should be as weak as possible relative to the individual … The proper posture of the state is one that at least is in fear of its citizen, not one that lords over it." (Zhou). As cited in cases surrounding “fighting words,” speech that incites rebellion is prohibited. Wilson frames Defense Distributed and its blueprints as a way for the common citizens with their DIY “Ghost Guns” to put themselves above the state, almost in a position of sovereignty.
           

Wilson insistently believes that his blueprints are constitutionally protected under the right to free speech.  "I'm talking about files. I'm not talking about the guns. I'm not a licensed gun manufacturer. I don't make guns at this location. I have data, I can share the data … I don't believe that I provide you with anything other than the general knowledge of what an AR-15 is.” In his eyes, Wilson is simply providing public knowledge akin to Wikipedia, not inciting public violence. The Department of Justice ultimately agreed with this interpretation, directing the State Department to settle in 2018 and recognizing that data is a form of free speech protected under the First Amendment.

What does it mean to own a “Ghost Gun”? - 
To Wilson and his followers, owning a ghost gun is absolute privacy, untraceable by the government. Owning a ghost gun is confidentiality, having the ability to privately obtain access to firearms one should not have. Owning a ghost gun is anarchism, the most extreme form of rebellion against everything that is safe, giving oneself the ability to kill at will.

Sadly, these descriptions of ghost guns are not merely slanderous anti-gun comments on paper. The Rancho Tehama Reserve shooting is a case in point. Having been denied a legal gun license due to his mental state, Kevin Neal used a ghost gun to kill five people and injure over twelve. After turning in his guns to the authorities, Neal looked at blueprints similar to Wilson’s to legally manufacture the AR-15 used in the shooting. (CBS Los Angeles). This example supports current gun control advocates – that politicians must pass restrictions to keep guns from dangerous individuals. Had Neal been unable to manufacture his own rifle, the number of fatalities could have been drastically reduced.
Advances in 3D printing and the easy access to blueprints online have made it easier to fabricate these untraceable guns. Relatively inexpensive kits can be purchased legally without the traditional process of licensing. The potential of widespread distribution calls for unique solutions in the future, and extensions of current attempts.

The future of 3D guns - 

Even after the State Department’s ruling, the opposition has not stopped in its effort to block Wilson’s blueprints. In July 2018, several senators introduced the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act, a bill that prohibited the act of publishing any digital file that programs a 3D printer to manufacture a firearm. (Carney). Despite its good intentions, the bill became entangled in partisan fighting, with only 32 democratic affiliated Senate cosponsors. Even President Trump voiced support for banning 3D printed guns, saying that the idea “doesn’t seem to make much sense,” but no Republicans have signed onto the bill. 
           

 Although the bill is unlikely to pass for now, we can anticipate that legislators will incorporate key elements of the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act into future bills. Primarily, the prohibition of publishing “digital instructions in the form of Computer Aided Design files or other code that can automatically program a 3-dimensional printer or similar device to produce a firearm or complete a firearm from an unfinished frame or receiver” would effectively stop all forms of 3D printing firearms. Additionally, prohibiting the completion of unfinished frames could also help alleviate the issue of ghost guns, as Wilson’s 3D blueprints are also designed to finish existing gun pieces (Senate Bill S.3304). 
            

While the 3D Printed Gun Safety Act is gridlocked in the Senate, future bills that are more comprehensive could be more attainable. The 3D Printed Gun Safety Act was hastily put together to block the release just hours before the set date and did not include enough explanation in the text of the bill proposal. Currently, opponents to the bill say that the Undetectable Firearms Act makes the new bill unnecessary, as firearms are already required to have at least 3.7 oz of steel for detection by metal detectors. However, this is not sufficient, as people can attach a small metal piece and detach it before security, nullifying any detection efforts. Resolving issues like this and including more text would greatly boost the chances of a future bill passing.
            

With the nation deeply divided over the issue of guns, the chance of any reform is uncertain.  The issue of 3D guns is likely to persist into late 2019, without bipartisan support and an upgraded bill. With the current Trump administration, little is likely to be resolved, as Mike Pompeo’s State Department was the one that settled the case.

Are we ready? 
  In the words of Wilson, “[t]he law had never considered such a thing … this is why it's had such a problem grappling with me…” (Lindell, American-Statesman).
           

Whether or not the federal government is ready, the age of 3D printed guns is here. In a world where 3D printers are now available for less than $1000, the technology required to create homemade weapons is both commonplace and affordable. Although the designs are currently unavailable in some states due to state lawsuits, nobody knows the exact extent to which the files have spread. As technology continues to grow at an ever-increasing rate, new legislation has to fill the divide between plastic and metal.