The US Department of Justice announced a program attempting to curb the use of machine gun conversion devices, which could involve 3D printers.
“MCDs” are the issue here. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco explained:
“We’re here to discuss one such emerging threat: machine gun conversion devices — or MCDs — also known as “switches” or “auto sears.”
These highly dangerous devices, that are often just a small piece of metal or plastic, can convert a run-of-the-mill firearm into a weapon of war.
Using MCDs is illegal. Selling MCDs is illegal. And being in possession of MCDs is also illegal.”
These devices are becoming quite commonly seen by police forces, and have enabled a number of deadly incidents. Monaco announced a new committee, the Action Network to Terminate Illegal Machinegun Conversion Devices, or “ANTI-MCD”. ANTI-MCD will track MCD seizures and speed best practices among US law enforcement agencies.
They have also created a national MCD Training Initiative to ensure law enforcement agencies know the state of the technology and have tools and procedures to deal with them. The US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms will also get a National MCD Coordinator to act as the information hub for all this activity.
One passage in Monaco’s remarks deals with our technology:
“We need to do more to disrupt that illicit flow.
We need to engage software developers, technology experts, and leaders in the 3D printing industry to identify solutions in this fight.”
So it seems that the DOJ will call on our industry to help solve this problem. But is there anything practical that can be done?
The most obvious step would be to have a deny list of 3D models known to be problematic, and have devices filter them out when printing is attempted. Evidently this approach is used by photocopiers to prevent copying of paper currency, so I could see legislators asking for something similar with 3D printers.
However, I can’t see this as particularly practical. Many desktop 3D printers involved in this business are essentially DIY devices that are easily modified, even if such firmware were installed. Their firmware could be flashed over by any of several alternative open source firmware systems to remove the filters. In addition there are hundreds of thousands of perfectly capable no-filter 3D printers on the loose in the world that will work for many years to come.
Even if filters were introduced, then you’re into a whack-a-mole scenario, where new illegal designs would be constantly created to avoid filters. This would be exacerbated by the use of new AI design tools that could quickly modify older designs.
Another possible approach might be watermarking, where prints are somehow tagged by slicing software or firmware to enable tracking. A print might be traceable back to the printer that produced it. However, this again could easily be disabled with the current designs of desktop 3D printers.
The central problem here is that 3D printers can produce arbitrary objects of any possible 3D design. That’s their purpose. For every legitimate use there could be an evil counterpart. Strong materials for industry use can also be used for illegal purposes.
That’s not surprising, because the architecture of today’s machines has evolved without any concerns for these aspects. You can’t make a car float.
