Uncertainty is a Warm Gun- The Future of 3D Printing, Gun Control, and Globalization

The recent passage of the UN Arms Trade Treaty by the General Assembly was a victory for civil society and human security activists, as the bill intends to curb the flow of arms trade by linking a country’s human rights record to its ability to acquire legal weapons. The United Nations is particularly aware of states’ concerns of impeding domestic sovereignty, and focuses only on “international sales” between states. The final resolution also emphasizes that the treaty will not affect existing domestic law, as the U.N. Office of Disarmament states that the treaty will not…

“interfere with domestic arms commerce or the right to bear arms in Member States; ban the export of any type of weapon; harm States’ legitimate right to self-defense; or undermine national arms regulation standards already in place.”

Despite this sign of deference to American concerns, Republican Senators remain particularly avowed against any sort of infringement of the 2nd Amendment, and its passage in the US Senate will be heavily disputed by the gun lobby and its powerful allies. Even if the bill doesn’t pass the Senate, broad acceptance of the treaty may breed civil society norms that will “shape the terrain” for future policymakers to better regulate arms control.

Yet recent developments in weapons manufacturing may threaten to change the entire ball game of regulatory regimes. Recently, Defense Distributed (a Texas-based non-profit group) has just announced that it has successfully tested its first-ever gun produced on a 3D printer. 3D guns is based off the additive manufacturing technology, which is a potentially revolutionary trend in manufacturing which will make it easier for firms and businesses to build small-scale objects like auto parts, prosthetic hands, children’s toys.

Anti-gun advocates are up in arms about Defense Distributed, as they are rightly concerned about the likelihood that it will be easier to acquire guns through 3D printing. Senator Chuck Schumer has announced legislation to make 3D printed guns illegal. Claiming that while plastic guns will be easier to sneak past security measures which rely on metal detection, Schumer also warns of the possibility of high-risk individuals acquiring weapons more easily. “A terrorist, someone who’s mentally ill, a spousal abuser, a felon can essentially open a gun factory in their garage,” said Schumer.

Yet improved access to guns is Defense Distributed’s founder Cody Wilson’s very goal, as he envisions a future where anyone with a 3D printer can download the blueprints of 3D guns for free. Wilson philosophically believes that “every citizen has the right to bear arms, and his libertarian beliefs are further espoused in his denouncement of politicians like Obama and Romney as “globalist neo-liberals who exist to preserve the interests of this relatively autonomous class of Goldman Sachs bankers.”

Though many will disagree with Wilson’s political vision, it is difficult to dispute his point that regulatory laws in its default status is not prepared for his new world. Wilson argues in an March interview with VICE that the current debates on gun control are insufficient , stating “We’re trying to prove a point…you can do this in your bedroom…gun control doesn’t mean what it meant in 1984”. While it is unlikely he meant to reference the Orwellian ode against censorship and totalitarianism, it is clear that the current political discourses is not prepared for the future. Whether it is domestic legislation or international treaties, the current laws being negotiated are clearly inadequate if they cannot account for the rapid development of technologies such as 3D printing. It will be a muted victory for the UN’s supporters if Wilson’s world arrives at our doorstep, when prospective arms buyers can easily circumvent background checks by printing guns from home.

Kelsey Atherton rightly asserts that 3D guns in itself is not the issue at hand, and cites evidence that shows how people have been constructing guns without the need for a 3D printer. Rather, the key issue of 3D guns is the underlying potential of 3D printing that may have broader implications for the global economy. 3D printing can possibly render global supply chains obsolete or even reverse American manufacturing’s decline (to Obama’s delight). Though 3D printing technology is clearly in its infancy stage, Moore’s Law and Wright’s Law predicts that technology will rapidly evolve over time as the economics of scale improve the technology’s efficiency. Atherton further notes that the potential of 3D printing will rest on the ability to develop the right material infrastructure.

The implications of a rapidly improving 3D printing industry are still quite unclear. Note that Cody Wilson’s vision is heavily dependent upon the power of open source and Internet technology to send his blueprints all around the world. Therefore, it may be up to each sovereign country’s responsibility to decide whether this technology is legal (in the absence of strong global governance institutions to regulate the Internet). It is likely that state governments and industry groups will share a vested interest in seeing open source technology restricted.

But what if in the future, we can print human organs? What if we can customize and transmit an exact blueprint for a person in timely need of an organ transplant? What will be the laws that govern such practices? Who will determine what is legal and illegal, and what will be the enforcement mechanisms to regulate this? More questions are raised which cannot be presently answered, but we must be keen to consider them as this technology continues to develop.

In conclusion, only time will tell whether Cody Wilson and his 3D guns prove to be a mere blip in the matter of things, or the structural revolution which will fundamentally shift the global economy. If the latter case proves true, it will be vital that our current understandings of international politics (regarding arms control, international organizations, norms, cyberspace) and global economics (globalization, trade law, intellectual property rights) be able to account for the potential of 3D printing. Our policymakers should recall that regulation is always 3 steps behind innovation, and will need to recalibrate our laws if this trend proves to be more than just a shot in the dark.