Technology has changed equation

To the editor:

This is in reply to Stephen Erwin’s letter to the editor in the Aug. 13 edition of The Commercial Review.

I do not disagree with Stephen at all in his clarification with regards to possessing or making a firearm at home. I am aware of the law(s) germane to his explanation.

My point is thus: The conundrum arises with the printing of 3-D firearms.

The kits to which Stephen refers and enjoys putting together are for the most part made of metal and wood. The 3-D printable guns are made of plastic and therefore undetectable by conventional means currently employed. This is my understanding and I could be wrong, and I would hope Stephen could enlighten me if I am in error.

The most disturbing part of Stephen’s expansion was: “In fact, it has always been legal and constitutional under federal law for anyone who can legally possess a firearm to make one.”

The legal conundrum arises from the phrase: “Who can legally possess.”

If you can legally possess, be my guest. I have no problem with that at all.

It is those who cannot that concern me.

I do understand as Stephen pointed out in closing his letter that 3-D guns may not be all that great, but technology advances rather than retreating and that does bother me.

Michael Kinser

Portland