Printable guns are a sticky issue

To the editor:

The ability to make a functional firearm in one’s home presents a conundrum, legally and constitutionally.

It most certainly creates a “sticky wicket” for those inclined to take an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation.

The founders, in their wildest imaginations, could never have foreseen the advent of computers or 3-D printers.

There is, in a broad sense, a first amendment issue, although one could argue at this point it has become moot since those instructions and prints have already been downloaded. On the other hand it could be argued as well that this is analogous to yelling fire in a crowded theater. And to what point does speech extend if a demonstrable danger to public safety or wellbeing can be shown?

It is my understanding from my own research that there are laws in place presently that prohibit possession of a weapon that cannot be traced or otherwise detected. Without a reading of the law, it would seem that production of 3-D printable firearms would be prohibited. I suspect this will be one of the arguments presented to the courts as we move forward.

Possession of such weapons would seem to raise second amendment issues as well. And although I completely support one’s right to bear arms (as have the courts), I could see allowance of these weapons raising possible legal issues.

Unfortunately, I foresee a plethora of misleading and, at times, downright false information, from both the left and the right. My hope would be the arrival of a solution that is amenable to both sides. But in the current political climate that is, alas, wishful thinking.

Michael Kinser

Portland