Two separate incidents at St. Charles High School in Maryland on consecutive days led to the recovery of multiple firearms from two 15-year-old students and their homes. In the first case, a school resource officer acted on a tip, confronted a student, and after a brief struggle recovered a handgun from the student’s waistband. Investigators later said they believe that firearm was produced using a 3D printer found in the student’s bedroom closet.
The following day, school staff identified suspicious behavior from another student and searched a locker, where they found a handgun that had been modified to fire full auto and was equipped with an extended magazine. The discovery prompted an evacuation and a full sweep of the building.
Deputies then executed a search warrant at the student’s home and recovered six additional firearms, including pistols and an assault-style rifle, along with ammunition and high-capacity magazines. Authorities said most of the weapons and all of the ammunition were unsecured, with several firearms located in the student’s bedroom. One of the guns had a serial number that was partially obliterated.
The firearm believed to have been produced with a 3D printer reflects a method that has become more common in recent years. Fully 3D-printed guns are generally unreliable on their own, so most are assembled using a combination of printed polymer parts and metal components. While the printed parts can be made at home, the metal pieces are still required for the firearm to function.
There is currently no practical way to prevent a standard consumer 3D printer from producing these parts. Unlike traditional printers that are restricted from reproducing currency, 3D printers will create objects based on whatever digital files are provided to them, and there is no built-in system that universally blocks the production of firearm components.
Firearms assembled in this way are often referred to as ghost guns. The term generally applies to weapons that are built from parts and lack serial numbers, making them difficult to trace. In Maryland, firearms without serial numbers are illegal. The partially obliterated serial number found on one of the recovered guns is also significant, as it suggests an attempt to interfere with traceability.
The larger issue in these cases is not limited to the method used to produce one firearm. The second student had access to multiple conventional firearms and ammunition in the home, most of which were unsecured. That raises questions about how those weapons were obtained, how they were stored, and who was responsible for securing them.
It also raises basic questions about supervision. A 3D printer, along with the materials needed to produce firearm components, requires money and access. The same is true for the additional firearms recovered in the home. Those items probably did not appear without some kind of adult involvement.
So the focus returns to the same place it often does in cases like this. Where were the parents, who paid for the equipment, and how did two 15-year-olds have access to multiple firearms in the first place?
(Sources)
Leave a Reply