By Olivia Bing

Introduction

In 2021, the New Zealand Police seized a 3D-printed gun in an Auckland raid, believed to be the first of its kind in New Zealand. Most recently, a man on trial was discovered to have a camo-coloured, 3D-printed plastic firearm in his house. Prior to the first discovery, many had raised concerns about the proliferation of 3D-printed weaponry in New Zealand, and our disturbing lack of regulatory and legislative measures. Most New Zealanders are unaware of this issue and the complexities involved in tackling it.

3D-Printed Firearms in New Zealand

3D printers allow people to design and print their own plastic objects, sharing the blueprints and CAD files (Computer Aided Design) over the internet for anybody to access. 3D-printed weaponry is currently unreliable and poorly manufactured, with there being instances of guns blowing up or coming apart. However, with many individuals and groups worldwide contributing with their updates and knowledge, such technology is rapidly improving. 3D-printed firearms carry a multifaceted range of threats that diverge from regular weaponry. First, 3D-printed firearms are often called “ghost guns”, as they are unregistered, being created and assembled at home. There is no way to measure how many ghost guns are in circulation. Secondly, anybody can create their own gun if they have the correct files, and are therefore potentially available to those without firearm licences. Thirdly, as weapons are mostly made with plastic materials, they cannot be detected with metal detectors, meaning they could potentially bypass security measures.

According to Detective Superintendent Greg Williams, Police have recovered at least 10 3D-printed guns as of 2022. Zubbin Navroji, avid target shooter and 3D printer enthusiast, noted that the plastics technology and layer-by-layer construction are unsuitable for weaponry making. He stated that “you will basically blow yourself up or hurt others around you.” However, metal 3D printing is becoming increasingly common and reliable.

Current Regulations and Legislation

Our current legislation does not stack up to what is needed to prevent potential harm from 3D weapons. The Arms Act 1983 and the Arms Regulations 1992 cover gun ownership and licences. Owning a firearm without a licence is illegal, but this acts as little deterrence for those printing and using 3D-printed guns for their own purposes. A Police spokesperson stated that creating or owning a 3D-printed firearm without a licence was illegal. This is because the Act’s definition of “firearm” does not differentiate between materials. It is unclear whether owning or sending a digital file blueprint of 3D-printed gun parts would be against the law. Firearms lawyer Nicholas Taylor stated that it was unlikely that downloading firearm blueprints would be upheld in court as a breach of the Arms Act. This is because the blueprints would be intangible, and would not constitute a part of the firearm.

Other Countries

Other jurisdictions have come face-to-face with this issue, with the state of New South Wales in Australia having criminalised possession of 3D gun digital blueprints and design files. The United Kingdom has updated its Firearms Act to include banning unlicensed 3D printing of guns. Germany has also prohibited the dissemination of design files relating to developing 3D-printed firearms. After an organisation released a functional 3D-printed pistol CAD file on the internet in 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued a nationwide injunction to stop the spread of these files and to have them removed from the internet. However, this has not stopped their proliferation, with the files receiving over 100,000 downloads despite the injunction. Regulation continues to be controversial in the US, as many equate possessing and sharing digital files to freedom of speech. This would also raise interesting questions in New Zealand about the extent of regulation we can (and should) realistically reach, and the limits of freedom of expression. 

Possible Solutions

Many have suggested possible solutions to ghost guns, with some approaching the issue from a preventative standpoint and others advocating for stricter punishment. Professor Olaf Diegel, an expert in 3D-printing technology from the University of Auckland, noted that experts were considering whether to classify possessing and downloading instructions as objectionable material. Commentators have also suggested requiring 3D printers to contain blocking software that prevents the downloading of CAD files, similar to Adobe Photoshop having measures to stop people from creating counterfeit banknotes. However, the Police declined to provide a definitive statement as to whether downloading, sending, owning, or receiving digital files of firearm parts was illegal, or would be in the future.

Another option is to regulate ammunition further. New Zealand already regulates ammunition, as only those with gun licences can purchase it. Changing laws to make possessing ammunition without a licence illegal may deter firearm risks. However, the quick advancement of 3D-printing technology may also see an increase in 3D-printed bullets.

Advocates have also suggested strengthening punishments for people who own a 3D-printed firearm. This would involve longer prison sentences and harsher fines. A trial before Justice Collins and a jury commenced in February this year, relating to the above-mentioned Australian deportee with the camo-coloured 3D gun. It is unclear whether this case will provide certainty around the laws and regulations of these weapons.

Conclusion

“Ghost guns” are aptly named, as this issue is almost invisible to the public eye. Despite the concerning development and increase of 3D-printed guns, many are still unaware of this issue’s existence and the uncertainty in its regulations. Although 3D-printed firearms are largely unreliable and resemble the latest line of budget Nerf blasters, such weapons only need one shot to be dangerous. Further discussion needs to be had around ghost guns, as developments of this technology continue to improve without intervention.

The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.