[MPJackal]

I think this is a case of technology lag. I don't know enough about 3D printing or 3D printed guns to make an informed opinion. I don't know who has 3D printers, where to get them, or any of that. But I would say that any laws or regulations have not caught up with that technology. I think a slight pause to study that is not unreasonable. I mean, do kids/felons have access to the printers/plans? Are the guns untraceable? How much of a problem are those? Should anything be done? Again, I don't know the answers and I doubt the judge does either. Just my opinion and FYI I am a 2nd Amendment supporter.

[qwerty1234]

imo, not really a 2nd amendment issue - its a 1st amendment issue.

[qwerty1234]

imo, not really a 2nd amendment issue - its a 1st amendment issue.

[editor-surveyor]

.
The constitution says “shall not be infringed.”

Prohibitions and regulations go way beyond mere infringement.

The authors of the amendment clearly intended that the people had sufficient access to sufficient armament to keep the government under their control.
.

[Vigilanteman]

I tend to go along with the little bear in the toilet paper commercial:

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should."

And, yes, I support both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. But some discretion is required.

[BuffaloJack]

“I don’t know who has 3D printers, where to get them, or any of that.”

I’ve used 3D printers for about 18 years now and even the ones capable of printing metal parts.
The parts are fine in prototypes and small demo runs, but ultimately they fail just when you are showing some customer your new part design.
It’s bad enough for the parts to fail when it’s just a show piece, but anyone printing and firing a printed gun is taking their life in their hands.