So 5 years ago, the 3D printed liberator got banned in the US due to breaches in ITAR. They raided the company and took their servers, all based on ITAR breaches of controlled information being disseminated through open means ( Deemed Exports )

Because of this, it's made it very difficult for me to share many of the models I've created since.

Today, the US government backtracked on that position, and says everything is OK.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/18/07/10/2121233/doj-reaches-settlement-on-publication-of-files-about-3d-printed-firearms

This original case led to a lot of laws with respect to ITAR and what could be printed and shared. If not for this, we could share DIY PVS-14's, 3D printed boots for tubes, adapters and all kinds of stuff online that benefits the community but can't be permitted due to the print-to-manufacture issues with ITAR.

Except.... Seems some things are changing.

Could this case mean that Night Vision that is not designed specifically for the military is not inherently military and therefore not controlled? Helmets? Head mounts? Seems just because something fits and works with military applications no longer infers that an item is controlled. Could this mean that tubes might be the last technology that is counted in this case, opening up the market for just about everything else, and allowing an era of open collaboration to enter night vision development?

At a time when there are people laser-repairing tubes, designing PSUs, making their own boots and potting tubes, building adapters... Much of this all 3D printed, what are the ramifications of this US government backdown on ITAR related offences when it comes to printed technology?

Might be a few interesting months coming up for us all - :)

David.

IMHO if you don’t 3-d print object the state has already won

It's not the printing they were prosecuting. It was the sharing.

Not if your in outer space. ...

The question that needs to be explored is: What does ITAR actually say?

Post that and we can parse through it.

ITAR says that if you publish detailed instructions on how to make something that is controlled, it's a deemed export.

AR15 is a controlled item. You can't just send them overseas.

What does the USML say about it?
ML1  Smooth-bore weapons with a calibre of less than 20 mm, other arms and automatic weapons with a calibre of 12.7 mm (calibre 0.50 inches) or less and accessories, as follows, and specially designed components therefor:

So yeah, that sounds like an AR15. This extended to accurate information that would allow someone to make one as well, such as a 3D printed part file.

Under this view, the seizing of the servers would have been valid, but now it's been determined not to be.

However, since some parts aren't really suitable for military use, even if the military can use them, there's some question as to whether they should be banned or not.

Some stuff on deemed exports: https://www.shippingsolutions.com/blog/why-the-deemed-export-rule-is-so-critical-ear-and-itar
Here's commentary on the original problem: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/does-it-violate-federal-export-law-if-a-website-publishes-cad-files-of-firearms/
And there's proposed changes to ITAR: https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/ITAR-Update/44-488536/

In a simplified explanation, the question is whether ITAR reaches as far now as it did before, and whether things that merely look like ITAR components but have been redesigned (eg, the AU-PVS-14 ) are subject to ITAR at all? Previously under the model imposed on many printable items, it would have.

Now? It's not so certain.

David

Does ITAR specifically keep anybody from designing things like NV mounts/helmets/accessories? Or is it only the image intensifiers and housings that are controlled? Kinda confused.

Specifically? Often not. It provides a series of instructions which are then interpreted.

But Helmets are, as are mounts. Tubes are, and so are monoculars, but bridges may be exempt from ITAR. It's sort of whatever is the main item controlled is specific, and anything that touches or interfaces with the main item are also included, but things that touch things that touch the main item are not included.

Intent is very very important. Something designed for military use is going to be on the list, while that same item if designed for non-military use, even if it's still militarily useful, would not be.

For example, I have a PVS-14 housing I designed that is considered to be an ITAR item simply because it resembles an ITAR item. On the other hand, my DBT-44 housing isn't an ITAR item, despite that it does exactly the same job, and uses most of the same components. The DBT-44 version A is actually available for download on my site and many people have downloaded it - some have even modified it.

So ITAR isn't as easy to predict as you might think. 3D printed weapons? Well, the government got that one wrong, so the question then is what else did they get wrong? Is a commercial housing that looks identical to a military housing and operates identically to a military housing an ITAR controlled item? For that matter, even if something is used by the military, if it's generic, might it still be considered not to be a controlled item under ITAR?

This new case has thrown a few spanners in the works. It might take time to see what the outcome is.

Could you post a link? I found your site (I think), but can't find where to download that. I have a printer and like tinkering with things.

It's here;

http://aunv.blackice.com.au/forum?index=3Dprojects&story=DBT44

Towards the bottom of the page.

It's been confirmed as not controlled, so sharing this one is fine. Even if they changed it's designation now, it's also in the public domain.

David

Insert gay. I’ve seen files that improved the liberator with integral can in 9, 40 and 45 just because Obama said no.  I’ve seen bump stock stl and other files.  If you don’t share you are censorship.

ETA: oh this is now an itar conversation.!?! What does itar say about non citizens looking through nvg at shot show and signing the registrar at a us company’s booth?

Thanks. I'm just beginning to learn about this stuff.

I'm old friends with ITAR though. It's serious business.

Is this ITAR compliant?

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2909932

Do you mean, is it a controlled item under ITAR?

Most likely.

But it's also in the public domain now, and public domain extinguishes ITAR controls.

So the only person who would need to worry would be the person who shared it - Putting a controlled item into the public domain is an offence under ITAR.  It's the same as exporting to an unfriendly country without a permit.

David.

It was always a discussion around ITAR and how it relates to NV...  It's not that "If you don't share you are censorship" - it's that many things that should be possible to share are not shared due to ITAR. I don't think most 3D printed items at today's technology level should be restricted by ITAR, but the US not only demanded it, but then pushed it onto other governments, such as the AU government.

It doesn't matter if you've seen files. It doesn't matter if you own files. It doesn't matter if you give those files to another person. It only becomes an issue when you post them openly online for anyone to copy.

Hopefully this will change.

As for non-citizens looking through NVGs at SHOT... Well, that was never about ITAR. I got the Australian government experts to evaluate that and provide me the results in writing  based on official government interpretation of ITAR and it's not a problem under ITAR letting non-citizens look through scopes, but you know, that didn't come out of nowhere. There was a real law enforcement push behind that idea and it's foolish to ignore such matters.

The acknowledgement by the government that it was wrong to seize the servers of Defence Distributed are a major step along fixing the way ITAR looks at what is and isn't controlled. It reopens on August 1. I think a lot of people will download the files when it opens. Hopefully this will extend further to include NV as well as guns.

David

Interesting topic David. I enjoy 3D printing and will be keeping an eye on this.

Are you positive of that?

I lost three separate FOIA cases against the NNSA on exactly the same topic. If you have some sort of cite, I'll refile tomorrow

I have been looking for a housing to print

Where does it say that? Under ITAR exceptions.

eg;
https://www.research.olemiss.edu/export-control/guidance/chapter/5

Of course, the DDTC ( PMDDTC ) are bitching about it.... eg;
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ce80a6b3-b57f-4bee-8356-739b26ce1a45

But yeah, public domain extinguishes ITAR ... Though they still retain provisions to put the cat in the bag when someone deliberately releases it as an attempt to do an end-run around ITAR rules. As far as I know though, I think it takes someone like the president to put that cat back in the bag.

David

David,

that's not been my experience. I asked for a line drawing of an object that can be physically handled and measured in multiple American museums, but it was found all the way up to be an ITAR violation to release it.

I have seen the information you link to, but you seem to gloss over the concept of 'technical data', which I know affects my cases; as a layperson, I can see where being 'technical data' would affect your pursuits, as well.

I might consider revisiting my cases in light of the rifle data case; one piece of case law builds upon another, I suppose.

Technical data is complicated.

But there appears to be an exception... For example, I can't get accurate data for side-rails because it's "Technical Data", even though I can approximate them.

However, If I make my own "Side Rail Standard" and publish it under the same name as the original, without infringing on the original (due to slight functional differences that don't affect compatability ) then I can publish the new standard as a non-military standard and it's fine... Who knows... My standard might even be the one that prevails. After all, if their measurements aren't in the public domain already, then they are secret, and as a secret, they are impossible to protect through patents or copyrights.

Just because something "fits" doesn't mean it was designed to be the same... Lots of ATN and Armasight stuff is compatible with it's milspec equivalent but is not controlled.

Though, yeah, caution is advised... From your posts I figure you already have that figured out, but since it's a public post, I'll spell it out for the rest of the readers. The government doesn't play fair and it doesn't necessarily play by it's own rules either.

If you follow that case law in the second link I listed, they go through and tear apart the government's perspective of the public domain quite effectively. This is also the key to the printable-AR15 case I believe.

Interestingly, that (defcad.org) site is down this morning... Seems some people feel you really can hold back the tide.

David.

The administration has been working for at least a year to move certain firearms from the USML (State Department) to export control under the Commerce Department.  The deal with Defense Distributed matches the proposed rule-making.  The proposed rule change will specify that firearms of 50 caliber and less, which are not fully automatic are not defense articles under ITAR.