FedEx Refuses To Ship Perfectly Legal Milling Machine (Which Can Also Craft Gun Parts), Can't Provide A Coherent Reason Why
from the baby,-bathwater dept
I recently toured a maker space in Burlington, and while I lack the inclination to build amazing contraptions out of Raspberry Pis, soldered metal and imagination myself, there's a Lego-loving corner of my brain that has an endless appreciation for the fusion of technology and creativity aided by modern marvels like 3D printers. It probably goes without saying that inexpensive and/or communal 3D printers, milling machines and other tools have opened the door toward a massive realm of new innovation, whether that's building less expensive prosthetic limbs, robotics or drones.Of course, the fact that a lot of this technology can also help build weapons has resulted in no limit of hysteria that has a great potential to hamper a lot of the better aspects of this technological evolution. The latest case in point comes courtesy of FedEx, which is refusing to ship a computer controlled (CNC) mill dubbed the Ghost Gunner. Sold by Defense Distributed, the $1,500 machine can carve any number of aluminum objects from digital designs. With a few cheap extra parts, it can also help craft untraceable, semi-automatic firearms. This, apparently, has worried the FedEx legal and marketing departments:
"This device is capable of manufacturing firearms, and potentially by private individuals,” FedEx spokesperson Scott Fiedler wrote in a statement. “We are uncertain at this time whether this device is a regulated commodity by local, state or federal governments. As such, to ensure we comply with the applicable law and regulations, FedEx declined to ship this device until we know more about how it will be regulated."Of course, we're entering an era where anything can be built at home, and just because firearms are among them, that doesn't make the tools illegal. Any lathe or mill can be used to help make a firearm; Defense Distributed appears to have gotten attention because of founder Cody Wilson's salty demeanor, and the fact it's specifically marketing their milling machine as a potential firearms maker. Again though, that doesn't magically make the ownership of such technologies against the law:
"But buying, selling, or using the Ghost Gunner isn’t illegal, nor is owning an AR-15 without a serial number, says Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and the author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. "This is not that problematic,” he says. "Federal law does not prohibit individuals from making their own firearms at home, and that includes AR-15s."When pressed, FedEx hasn't been able to give a decent reason why it has suddenly added milling machines to its list of unshippable materials alongside hazardous waste and corpses. As we've noted when discussing the hysteria over firearm printing instructions or legislative efforts to thwart gun printing, this is a genie that's well out of its bottle, and no limit of cajoling the agitated djinn back into confinement is likely to be successful. Still, it seems inevitable that we try, in the process stumbling on and over a myriad of technological potential in the misguided quest to roll back the clock to a simpler age.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 3d printing, cnc machines, cody wilson, guns, shipping, weapons
Companies: defense distributed, fedex
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
FedEx has a point.
They're all about CYA, not about preventing the proliferation of firearms parts of CNC milling machines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FedEx has a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FedEx has a point.
My reading of the post you are replying to is that FedEx is not refusing to ship it because it is illegal. This is merely a business decision: FedEx is refusing to ship it in order to reduce its chance it will be sued (or be hurt by negative PR) over a subsequent shooting incident.
If the other AC is correct, however, that FedEx has no problem with shipping actual firearms and ammunition, then this looks like a really strange business decision...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FedEx has a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: FedEx has a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: FedEx has a point.
Creating an opportunity for competition from companies who don't have an issue with transporting legal merchandise from one place to another. So long as it is legal to transport legal merchandise, and there are no artificial barriers to the business (which sadly, may be the case.) If it becomes illegal to transport legal merchandise, than we have much bigger problems. If CNC machines become illegal merchandise, then we have much bigger problems as well.
If UPS (who, in the Ars Technica article say they won't transport these CNC machines as well,) and FedEx wish to leave money on the table, let them, so long as they don't then run to their buddies and complain and quash someone else who is willing to pick up the money and transport legal merchandise in their place.
It sucks, and will likely make this endeavor cost more in the short run as they search for another company, but in the long run it just means more competition that is sorely needed. Isn't this exactly how capitalism works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FedEx has a point.
A mannequin advertised as a "rotting dead body" still is a mannequin and not an actual rotting dead body. A CNC machine marketed as a "gun making machine" can still make guns. Phew.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FedEx has a point.
Assuming it is a rotting dead body, eventually it actually becomes hazardous materials that require professional processing.
A gun mill, even if used to mill guns doesn't actually commit any crimes until waaaaaay down the line when someone's assembled a gun than gone and committed a crime with it. By far, most guns are not used commit crimes throughout their entire existence as a gun. Gun mills don't ever. (Not true. In some states AK-47s are blatantly illegal to possess when fully assembled, more because communism than evil gun.)
If Fedex's policy is not to ship anything that might some day facilitate the commission of a crime, that would rule out an awful lot of stuff that I bet they gladly ship every day.
So refusing shipment of a gun mill sounds completely political. It sounds like discrimination against a fringe group because it's still somehow okay to discriminate against guys who like making guns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bad article mistake
And the reason it has been marketed as such is exactly to cause reactions like the one it did, pointing out that general-purpose products may trigger gun control regulations when considered thoroughly.
Similar to how general purpose color copiers are problematic when viewed in money counterfeiting context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bad article mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad article mistake
I don't think that's hitting on the same issue here.
Take that same color copier, market and brand it as a counterfeiting device, then try shipping it FedEx/UPS. Do you really think they won't also take exception to it then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bad article mistake
I think the point is that FedEx may refuse to ship a package labeled "counterfeiting equipment", even if it merely contains a color copier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
If they shipped a product labeled, "kitchen knife with which to stab your wife," and the recipient stabs his wife, then I'm guessing FedEx would get sued for facilitating that act, at least in civil court. So the CYA approach seems reasonable here. They can always change their minds later and this isn't hurting their business much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
Just like PayPal cancelling a business person's account because someone made a payment to them with a joke of a memo "for cocaine".
Yes, it's the same stupid that gives rise to "zero tolerance" policies, and yes, FedEx would undoubtedly be on the receiving end of a lawsuit for exercising common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
http://eapps.pro/app/body-massager/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
That would be a double-edged sword, as a shipping company could be setting itself up to be sued for illegal discrimination of some kind or another. For instance, imagine banning the shipping of birth-control or abortion information or products (notwithstanding that the US Post Office did exactly that in the past, considering such things "obscene")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
The milling machine marketed to make weapons parts seems a little blurrier of an issue. If they were expressly marketed as a device for making untraceable weapons in order to get away with murder, it'd be pretty clear cut that FedEX should stay away from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
ORLY? I would not trust them to ship it for me now. I'd be worried about sabotage. I'll never ship FedEx again.
This's why common carrier status ought to be ubiquitous. They shouldn't need to care about what's in the box. That's between the DoJ and the receiver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
Someone mentioned UPS won't ship them either, are you going to boycott them too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
http://www.shipgreyhound.com/e/pages/Home.aspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bad article mistake
Perhaps so. It's important to note, though, that counterfeiting is illegal, while making gun parts (and indeed, entire guns) is perfectly legal in most of the United States without any special licensing, registration, or anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have no such restriction, and regularly ship all sorts of weapon-related tools and parts. FedEx also ships actual firearms, and actual ammunition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 25th, 2015 @ 11:47am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their job is to deliver the packages from point A to point B.
I understand if the package presents a health danger to the men and women of the company, but a moral danger is unacceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like a case for the ACLU!!!
Can't get in to a restaurant cause of your religion, "race", or sex?
Want to have a fabulous cake at your same sex, non-denominational Wedding?
Want to live in a custom built home, in a certain neighborhood, where only decent pink folk currently live?
Want to ship your little CNC milling machine that your customers may make firearms components with, even the little bit of metal that the ATF considers to be the regulated firearm itself, which is perfectly legal under federal law?
Call the ACLU defenders of The People!!! Oh wait never mind…
From the ACLU's site:
https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-a mendment
Gun Control
Updated: 1/17/2013
The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.
In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looks like a case for the ACLU!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looks like a case for the ACLU!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Looks like a case for the ACLU!!!
Why don't we see what the people who WROTE the US Constitution says it means, and the courts of that time - and beyond - before there were filled with Domestic Enemies (traitors, but was playing nice) of the USA and the American people say about the Second Amendment.
Oh, and this quote by George Washington applies to this article.
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." George Washington
Notice that even back at that time he felt that there would come a time that we would have enemies serving within our governments and that we needed to make sure that we had OUR OWN "manufactories" so that we would not be dependent upon those who serve within our governments. Our framers knew history, and everything else, much better then anyone educated today. Sad isn't it.
How many of you today are aware that those who serve within our governments were FORBIDDEN to create governmental professional law enforcement or to keep a "standing" (full time) military?
James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution: “... large and permanent military establishments ... are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 specifies that there shall be no military beyond that of two years. The Militia of each state is charged with our nations defense here within the USA until and unless the congress has declared war and a “standing” military is raised:
“To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”.
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, floor debate over the 2nd Amendment, I Annals of Congress: “What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to PREVENT THE ESTABLISMENT OF A STANDING ARMY, the bane of liberty….”
James Madison: "An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government."
Tench Coxe: “Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... THE UNLIMITED POWER OF THE SWORD IS NOT IN THE HANDS OF EITHER THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENTS BUT, where I trust in God it will ever remain, IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE.”
Thomas Jefferson, 1st inaugural, explained that: "a well-disciplined militia" is "our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them" and also a guarantee of "the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; [and] economy in the public expense."
Samuel Adams: “It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control ... The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them..”
Our governments - state and federal - were to use the Militia, us, when needed to enforce things or to defend our states, our nations so that we could NEVER become a police state.
Representative Jackson, first U.S. Congress, when it met and turned to defense measures in 1791: “The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a Militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords.”
The New Hampshire ratifiers called for a guarantee (the Second Amendment) that: Congress shall never disarm any Citizen...”.
The Pennsylvania minority at its ratifying convention demanded a guarantee of a very broad right to arms, that: "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game."
Joel Barlow, Revolutionary War veteran, and American whose political writings were debated on the floor of Parliament said of the US Constitution: "… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”
Daniel Webster: “Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war in which the folly and wickedness of the government may engage itself? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest right of personal liberty? Who will show me any Constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life, itself, whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? ... A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men”.
Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power”
Andrews v. State explains, this "passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
Nunn vs. State:'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right”.
Bliss v. Commonwealth: “Arms restrictions - even concealed weapons bans - are unconstitutional, since arms bearing is an individual right and the legislature may not restrict any aspect of such a right.”
Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition: "The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army."
Thomas J. Jackson: “The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.”
Thomas Jefferson:“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”
John Norton Pomeroy: “The object of this clause [the right of the people to keep and bear arms] is to secure a well-armed militia.... But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms.”
State Gazette (Charleston): No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.
Ask yourself this, WHEN did those who serve within our governments start dismantling the Militias of the several states?
In the early 1930's. They went at it with gusto soon after Joseph Stalin said in 1933: ”The United States should get rid of its militias”.
Those who serve within our governments were never given the authority, and the Second Amendment itself says "shall not be infringed" which means that no one serving within any of our governments may alter in any way that PROTECTION.
Each state's Militia is made up of “We the People” protecting our own interests, homes, states, nation, and enforcing our governments. The Militia has as its constitutionally assigned duties to:
Enforce the US Constitution and each state's Constitution,
Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
“to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
The US Constitution guarantees to each state its own “Republican form of government”. It is every state's Militia that is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to “counter Invasions” and “Domestic Violence” within our nation.
Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions."
Notice that no where is "law enforcement mentioned, nor is calling out the Military which is not allowed to exist - now you know why the Pentagon keeps us in false and unlawful/illegal wars. No standing military and they lose a lot of power, money, positions. Think about it.
The forefathers wouldn't put the militia under federal control as there was always a chance that those in office would turn traitorous against the people. They already had learned, and history taught – then and now, that people in places of power could not be trusted. So they broke it up; the people ARE the militia and would keep the best interests of the people themselves at the forefront of all decisions made. Then they assigned the duty of organizing, arming, and disciplining each state's militia to the federal congress; and to each state the appointment of their Militia's officers and their training; all under Article I, Section. 8, Clause 16.
“To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Looks like a case for the ACLU!!!
Yet the ACLU had no objection to the federal government's massive crackdown on the 1990s militia movement that sprang up in response to the Waco and Ruby Ridge massacres. (Maybe these militias were insufficiently "well regulated"?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ACLU, like any human-run organization, has its biases.
I'm not saying it's right, but from what I've encountered of activist fronts, they seem universally unable to unconditionally hold to their philosophical ideals in the real world. In most cases, it appears in the way they triage their cases.
I learned this by working for certain fronts to promote specific bills only to discover they've ceased endorsing that bill (such as when gay marriage was controversial in California).
In the case of the second amendment, yeah it sucks that gun-owners rights are left by everyone else to let the NRA handle it. And the NRA is, in turn, represents the cause with a conspicuous lack of finesse or decorum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The ACLU, like any human-run organization, has its biases.
Not many are able to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfectly Legal
This device cannot manufacture a whole gun, but can take an AR-15 lower receiver that has been ~80% completed ( not a firearm at this point), and finish it in about an hour ( now legally considered a firearm). You could also do it using standard tools in about 3 hours... so he is selling a perfectly legal device for $1500 that will save you about 2 hours and cost more than just buying a fully functional gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perfectly Legal
Two hours per is twelve per day, that's the beginning of a revolution in a month. Or everybody everywhere with an M16 slung over their shoulder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The revolution isn't going to need guns.
The revolution is going to need bombs. Explosives. Boom-booms.
Stealth and sabotage is the name of the game. Kill the infrastructure that allows law enforcement and government agencies to spy on the people.
And these mills, even if they're DRMed against gun parts will probably still be able to make bomb parts just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Perfectly Legal
You left out the words "for now". The only reason that it's not illegal to make your own guns is that up until now, making a gun has required expensive equipment, knowledge and skill. Once it gets to the point that any moron can select a design, hit the PRINT button and end up with a collection of parts ready to be assembled, it will be made into a felony so quick your head will spin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An unenforceable felony, perhaps.
By the third wave, there will be too many out there, but owning one will be considered crime paraphernalia and used to justify a SWATting or the seizure of the house.
By the fourth wave, these machines will be almost guaranteed to be used to manufacture gun parts and sabotage devices, in that the insurgency forces will need to be armed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UPS wont ship it either
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: UPS wont ship it either
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: UPS wont ship it either
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: UPS wont ship it either
All the carriers, including the USPS, will ship gun *parts*. It'd be ridiculous to have to go through an FFL for springs or sights or metal pins. But it's easier to just play PR than try to explain that to a reporter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: UPS wont ship it either
For further shipping silliness, shippers like UPS charge a HazMat fee to deliver primers (the ammunition component that makes it all go bang) or gunpowder (the part that *burns* really fast when the primer goes off). However, there is no HazMat fee if the very same primers are installed in empty cartridge cases, or if you're shipping loaded ammunition that has both powder and primers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: UPS wont ship it either
The manufacturer gets untold amount of free advertising.
The carrier gets to wrap itself in the flag and publicly show due regard for legalities.
That's a true red, white, and blue win-win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"This device is capable of manufacturing firearms, and potentially by private individuals,” FedEx spokesperson Scott Fiedler wrote in a statement. “We are uncertain at this time whether this device is a regulated commodity by local, state or federal governments. As such, to ensure we comply with the applicable law and regulations, FedEx declined to ship this device until we know more about how it will be regulated."[/quote]
My take on this statement is: someone up the chain in FedEx saw this product, which is advertised as a tool to help people make guns, and got spooked about the potential legal and PR issues. Now they're not going to ship it until the lawyers and PR folks tell them it's fine. Since this product probably represents about .0000001% of FedEx's total revenue, sorting this out probably isn't anyone's top priority. In fact, given that lawyers and PR people don't work for free, its probably more cost-effective for them to just not bother sorting this out at all and just choose not to ship the item.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One could argue that this sort of 'backdoor' pressure is warranted when it's against people and companies in foreign lands outside the control of the US government. And that's certainly how the policy started. But like most things the government starts, there's the inevitable 'mission creep' that will soon develop. So tactics that were developed for dealing with out-of-reach foreign entities constantly trickle down to other things ... such as domestic law enforcement -- or maybe we should say "outside-the-law enforcement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is it that the Obama administration has done in opposition to the 2nd amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Primarily by getting the ATF (through his buddy, DOJ head Eric Holder) to *re-interpret* decades-old laws, so that things that always were legal in the past suddenly become illegal, despite no actual change in law. The ATF gets to interpret and re-interpret gun laws (and reverse its earlier decisions) as it sees fit, and since few people have the money to fight the ATF all the way to the Supreme Court (yes, the ATF likes to play hardball) the ATF's opinion essentially takes the rule of law.
The "death by a thousand paper cuts" list is long, so I'll just point out the latest action that just happened a few days ago. The AFT has changed its mind about a common rifle ammunition, 5.56 M855 military surplus, that the ATF has judged as legal for the last 30 years.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2015/02/24/why-is-the-atf-moving-to-ban-common-rifle-ammo/
T his is a repeat of what happened a few months earlier, when the ATF changed its mind about another military-surplus rifle round, the 5.45 7N6, which it now considers an illegal armor-piercing handgun round because the ATF recently approved an application for a company to build a pistol that shoots 5.45x39mm. Many pro- 2nd Amendment people felt this was a dirty trick by the ATF, to give its official stamp of approval to a handgun design that fired rifle ammunition (for a gun that was apparently never even made) and then banning the high-velocity ammunition by re-classifying it as handgun ammunition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're so gay. Why don't you just quit whining like a little girl, nigger?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please, PLEASE don't tell me you're siding with Defense Distributed.
Does the fact that a 3-d printer can make a gun make it against the law? No. Does marketing your 3-d printer as a gun factory make reasonable people at least start wondering if they'll be legally liable for shipping it? YES. FedEx is right, juvenile libertarian is a moron, there's just nothing to see here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please, PLEASE don't tell me you're siding with Defense Distributed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please, PLEASE don't tell me you're siding with Defense Distributed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please, PLEASE don't tell me you're siding with Defense Distributed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Please, PLEASE don't tell me you're siding with Defense Distributed.
Actually, I don't think that's his goal at all. His public statements and his website's ABOUT page have clearly-stated goals, which have nothing to do with what you've written. I will admit I know nothing about him and could well be wrong, though.
If you're right, though... to be honest, that's exactly the type of 'libertarian' nonsense I was ranting about in my original post. If you prefer to "show how hollow the corporate stooges' justifications are" than actually ACCOMPLISHING anything, well, job well done. Really, nobody out here EVER thought that a massive company like FedEx would avoid controversy. Congrats - you've got yourself in the newspapers, and proven that corporations are moral cowards. Put it on your tombstone.
Absolutely not. I realize what Wilson is and that he's intentionally bringing most of this on himself because he has a loud mouth. That said, I still don't think banning the shipping of perfectly legal items because of the way they're marketing sets a particularly great precedent.
Karl - it actually sounds like we are 100% in agreement here. Which is why I wish some narcissistic idiot wasn't pushing as hard as he can to MAKE SURE that these companies are going to use a set of bad facts to set a terrible precedent. Because once that precedent is set, it provides cover for other companies who want to do the same thing; it drives the discussion in Washington; it means that the marker has already been placed in a bad location for when someone wants to try restricting things even more.
Bravo, Cody Wilson. Bravo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Please, PLEASE don't tell me you're siding with Defense Distributed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Being a jackass and offending people...
And we have a lot of folks who are denied rights and services for less. It's the Hustler / raunchy porn free speech rule: when we protect outrageous or offensive speech, it demonstrates that less offensive speech is protected.
When we protect the rights of those of us who are most despicable and offensive, it means that the rights of us who are less so are also protected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If FedEx ships a router or hard drive is it guaranteed to end up with NSA backdoors in it?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know about "guaranteed", but it seems quite possible:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140124/10564825981/nsa-interception-action-tor-develope rs-computer-gets-mysteriously-re-routed-to-virginia.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dud link?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dud link?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dud link?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dud link?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dud link?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dud link?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dud link?
http://images.fedex.com/us/services/pdf/SG_TermsCond_US_2015.pdf
In this case it seems that Javascript does not even do anything, it simply hides the URL behind a fancy pull-down box. Many sites do that sort of thing these days, using Javascript and Flash for "special effects" that do absolutely nothing utility-wise. Yes, it's extremely annoying and I will dread the day when Techdirt "modernizes" it's website and adds similarly useless eye-candy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so fast...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so fast...
But turning away profitable business to avoid negative PR, lawsuits, or fines does not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
beating plowshares into ... Kalashnikovs?
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG Guns!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nearest CNC shop knows better
you can make guns by yourself (in your basement) with EVERY CNC machine, and even with "old school" manual mills...
you just need to teach yourself machining basics ...
ignoring this fact is kind of stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
erasing serial numbers...
why doesn't EVERYBODY do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: erasing serial numbers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Such a "law" isn't enforcible since it isn't possible to determine whether profits are indeed "maximized".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"But this CNC mill, sold by Wilson’s organization known as Defense Distributed for $1,200, is designed to create one object in particular: the component of an AR-15 rifle known as its lower receiver."
https://ghostgunner.net
It was designed, built, and marketed to create this one very-specific thing (to skirt around the laws regulating that thing).
If he was interested in selling a generic CNC machine, he could have easily done that.
Is it legal for FedEx to refuse to ship it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The first item on his page states clearly that this is an open-source, general purpose CNC mill. The face that he provides the files necessary to finish the AR-15 lower receiver is the only questionable fact. The machine itself IS a general purpose CNC mill, and apparently a good one. I certainly DO question his wisdom and marketing prowess in labeling it as a gun finishing tool, knowing that the Government and the Liberals would jump on that fact feet first. Not too bright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common carrier
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Common carrier
Because the Obama regime is very anti-gun, it's certainly not going to mind when common carrier companies overstep their legal authority for the purpose of gun control. Eric Holder, upon leaving office, even admitted being sorry that he did not do more in the way of gun control measures, apparently oblivious to the fact that the DOJ's job is supposed to be to enforce Congress's laws, not create their own.
Because Congress never addressed the issue of (serial number free) home-made guns among its numerous gun-control laws, the DoJ/ATF has been basically shooting from the hip, telling people what's legal and what's not by making up laws on the fly and unleashing SWAT raids and mass-confications against people and companies who dare to stand up for their legal rights.
The ATF shut down gun "build parties" last year, insisting that companies that rent out CNC machines on their shop floor for the intended purpose of helping people build their own gun is illegal. Cody Wilson's Ghost Gunner was no doubt a direct reaction to that ATF policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gimme a break!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Rose by anyother name would smell as sweet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I saw that. There's lots of other noise that drowns that out.
@79: "The face that he provides the files necessary to finish the AR-15 lower receiver is the only questionable fact. The machine itself IS a general purpose CNC mill, and apparently a good one. I certainly DO question his wisdom and marketing prowess in labeling it as a gun finishing tool, knowing that the Government and the Liberals would jump on that fact feet first. Not too bright!"
Why do you question it?
It was done deliberately.
Clearly, the intent if the seller is the purpose of building the gun part. There isn't any ambiguity about that.
Why is it FedEx's job to sort it out? Especially, since the seller is deliberately "confusing" the issue?
If a customer is being a dick, a provider isn't required to service him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe he doesn't particularly care about selling anything, and just wants to make a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]