The Resistance Library from Ammo.com: Matthew Larosiere: Director of Legal Policy at the Firearms Policy Coalition

Matthew Larosiere: Director of Legal Policy at the Firearms Policy Coalition

Jul 9, 2020

On this guest episode of the Resistance Library Podcast Sam Jacobs has Matthew Larosiere on the show.

Matthew Larosiere is the Director of Legal Policy at the Firearms Policy Coalition and an unashamed supporter of the Second Amendment without exceptions. He is also an early adopter of the 3D printer, something that he has become very skilled at using to make full firearms, firearms components, and other pieces. He believes that 3D printed guns are not just a Second Amendment issue, but also a First Amendment issue. His position in the FPC brings him into close contact with breaking legal issues and emerging attacks on the Second Amendment.

Sam talked with Mr. Larosiere about the reaction of the Michigan Legislature to legally armed protesters, the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s move to ban so-called “ghost guns” without due legal process and, of course, 3D printed guns and why they’re so important -- and cool. For a full transcript of Sam's interview see below.

Matthew’s Links:

Other Helpful Links:

For $20 off your $200 purchase, go to https://ammo.com/podcast (a special deal for our listeners).

Follow Sam Jacobs on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SamJacobs45

And check out our sponsor, Libertas Bella, for all of your favorite 2nd Amendment shirts at LibertasBella.com.

Transcript of Episode:

Sam Jacobs (32s):

Welcome back to the Resistance Library Podcast from Ammo.com. I'm your host, Sam Jacobs. And I am here today with Matthew Larosiere. Matthew Larosiere is the director of legal policy at the Firearms Policy Coalition. The first thing I'd like you to do is just kind of tell everyone who doesn't know what the Firearms Policy Coalition does. Just kind of give me the like nickel tour of what it is you guys do over there.

Matthew Larosiere:

Well, we are a 501c4 nonprofit, a grassroots advocacy organization.

So we engage in, you know, your ordinary advocacy. We also do direct lawsuits, research, you know, public information requests, basically where a full service gun rights group. We do everything from. So like my department is kind of like a think tank and grassroots department where we research different policy areas and what logic is behind them. And also the principles underlining, you know, our side of the issue, which is, you know, freedom.

But, but yeah, so we're a full service, no compromise gun rights organization. And that means, you know, we don't, there's no second amendment, but with us, I'm a, I'm a big fan of machine guns and light tanks. So that should tell you what you need to know.

Sam Jacobs:

Yeah. I, I, you know, it's funny because I instantly thought like, “Oh, so you're, you guys are cool with machine guns,” as are we, so that's fine. We're very much on the same page. And I figured that we would be, but the language that you used was like, Oh yeah, they're so of course they want to repeal the 1986 gun control act, which...

Matthew Larosiere:

Uh...I'd go further. I've got a machine gun right here, actually. [machine gun sound] But why start with just FOPA, right? Why not go all the way back to GCA and NFA? It's all garbage.

Sam Jacobs:

Sure, sure. And you will find absolutely no disagreement from me there whatsoever. Do you mind telling us about your machine gun?

Matthew Larosiere:

This one here is a STEN Mk. II, you know, 1942 made at ENC company in England during the war. I've also got here a Chauchat 1915, a Costa Rican Breda, and Chatellerault light machine rifle.

Sam Jacobs (3m 0s):

It's funny because every guy that I know who has machine guns, like they're like potato chips, you can't get just one.

Matthew Larosiere (3m 4s):

No, it's impossible. And then also getting a pro tip is get weird ones like mine, because they're way cheaper.

Sam Jacobs:

Why is that?

Matthew Larosiere:

Because everybody wants an M 16, everybody wants a Thompson and you know, there's only so many on the registry, but then like, like a Breda is a seven millimeter, four shot burst rifle that no one's ever even heard of. So yeah, you'll get away with paying that what you might pay for, you know, a really nice semi auto rifle.

Sam Jacobs (3m 32s):

Well, that's good. I'm glad that you're helping our listeners to source their fully automatic machine guns. I, and I genuinely am. And also, you know, I was going to ask like, why we need the firearms policy coalition when we have the militant defenders of the Second Amendment at the NRA. That's a joke for anyone who's not picking it up.

Matthew Larosiere (3m 56s):

Yeah. Well, I mean, I know, you know, I don't talk about the Jones's, you know... they, they do all kinds of work. They've got, you know, there, there are things that everybody in this area has something to provide, but we provide zero compromise. You know, we don't negotiate with politicians, it's against our policy. And if you want somebody who isn't going to ever say, you know, Oh, well, it's just a bump stock.

That's us, we're behind, you know, a lot of litigation involving the bump stock ban, some of which is still active. So.

Sam Jacobs (4m 35s):

Which I think it was really cool because, you know, I think that you're right, that everyone, you know, that everyone has something offered in this sphere, you know, all joshing aside. But you know, the thing that I think is really cool about what you guys do and what I kind of fixated on when I was going, going through and researching for this episode was I love that you guys get down in the trenches of litigating this stuff. And so I was following kind of some back and forth you guys had with the attorney general of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, I saw that you had your Shapiro is a tyrant shirt on, in one of your videos.

And I think that people oftentimes fixate on what gets the headline, or what gets the press conference, or what gets the soundbite, but so much of what the Second Amendment, or rather defending the Second Amendment is about, is about, you know, a lot of this really unglamorous work in the trenches that no one ever gets, that you don't get, it's not very sexy, and you don't get the same recognition for it, but in some ways it's much more important.

And I think it's really cool that you guys do that.

Matthew Larosiere (5m 54s):

Right. And we also like the, so not just that, but we just get engaged, you know, I spend a lot of time talking to representatives and just trying to change the shape of the issue. Like, and so I've actually, I've got my Joshua Shapiro TEC-9 right here. You know, we like, you know, with the 3D printed guns, we wanted to make a big point about this. I've been in the maker space for some time.

And, you know, they're always talking about how all these illegal guns, illegal guns, you know, ghost gun, blah, blah, blah. And nobody's talking about how much of a First Amendment issue it is. So, you know, we have the freedom and like, you know, in my department, we have the ability to, we sat down and we designed, you know, with, with help from the community, a 3D printable TEC-9 receiver, that's got this politician's face all over it that says, you know, that it’s a love letter to him.

And the point of it is it's to change the shape of the debate. We do a lot of stuff like that. So we put this out and the, I don't know if you've seen it, but it's like, you take one, look at this gun, it's hot pink, it's covered in little hearts. And, you know, it's got a politician's face on it. You sit there and look at me and tell me that's not First Amendment conduct. Right. So we're trying to do stuff like that to make sure we don't just cover the guns, but also the gun adjacent stuff, like, you know, First Amendment, right to build, right to associate, you know, all that stuff,

Sam Jacobs (7m 38s):

Which again, I think is really cool. And one of the things I liked about that weapon and just 3D printed guns in general is how so many of them come in these like tropical candy colors and, and they kind of weirdly subvert this whole, you know, “Ooh, it's a scary black rifle thing,” which I think is cool. You know, it doesn't make them a better weapon or anything, but I just find it kind of interesting where that's, where a lot of it has gone.

I mean, of course like the 3D printed materials tend to kind of be a little more technicolor than what comes out of a factory. Anyway,

Matthew Larosiere (8m 18s):

You can get any color you want. It's a cultural thing. And I, I don't know how it took cold, but me, you know, nothing spurred me to do it, but I think it might just be because I'm a proud native Floridian, but I print out all my firearms receivers in teal and pink, which cause I consider those to be, you know, South Florida colors. And it just, it's just a thing we do, which is funny. I mean, they make black, they make gray, but we kinda like putting them out in these funny colors.

Sam Jacobs (8m 47s):

So this is a good segue to talk about 3D printed guns kind of in general, one thing that you had posted on your Twitter, it was either you or the FPC’s account, but it is a common refrain that I hear when talking about 3D printed guns. And that is the technology just isn't there yet, which as somebody who's not, who's kind of interested in 3D guns, but isn't an expert on them by any means. This sounds wrong to me, but I don't, I can't explain why.

So what do people mean when they say that and why are they wrong?

Matthew Larosiere (9m 23s):

So it's, it's a noble lie that gets told in the mainstream media. And they're always sitting there saying, “Oh, well, you know,” and, and like you often observe it on something, a source that you'd otherwise think to be friendly like, “Oh, well we don't need to worry about 3D printed firearms because the technology just isn't there. It's gonna blow up in your hand. You know, whatever.” The, the fact is we are way further along than most people realize, especially in the United States where, you know, we have the receiver distinction and we're allowed to get barrels and, and, you know, all kinds of other parts delivered right to our houses, as we should. We're like way beyond the point of having really effective, repeatable, reliable equipment that's printed.

Like, you know, that TEC-9 thing that we made, that one I have here was printed with the cheapest pink PLA that I could find. It's got like $5 of plastic in it. And it has held up to hundreds of rounds without even a crack. So we're, we're there and we've got the FGC 9, which is significant because it's one of the first self-loading semi automatic firearms designs that uses virtually no, you know, what you'd call a gun parts.

Even the barrel, there's a 3D printable mandrel that lets you use, you know, a battery charger and some saltwater, you know, to simplify it, to cut the rifling on your own barre. You can build this stuff, you know, you can get into 3D printing firearm receivers with a $180 printer. So it's, it's really not this, you know, infant technology. It's, I mean, we're there, it's here.

Sam Jacobs (11m 17s):

Well, you know, in terms of the effectiveness of this technology, why is there this tendency on both sides of the Second Amendment debate? I hate to put it in those terms because I don't really actually think it is a debate. I think there's people who want it, people who want to infringe on your rights and people who don't want to infringe upon your rights. So maybe I should frame it more in those terms, but why do both of these sides kind of agree on this thing that's not really true,

Matthew Larosiere (11m 45s):

Right. So, you know, if I'm to play devil's advocate, if I'm to give them my best argument, I would say that a program people, you know, like, like you're saying, they want to just kind of poo poo it and say, “Oh, just forget about it for right now, you know, look over this thing over here.” And what I find problematic with that argument is that it carries within it, the implicit suggestion that once the technology does get to that point, which it already has, then it will be okay to do something which, you know, rather than, you know, my perspective is this is awesome.

We live in the future, let's embrace this and everybody should have one. Whereas on the other side, I think they might, I think the best reason for the anti side to tell this noble lie is either, well, either one, they haven't done their research and they don't know. And so it could be that like, you know, the, the pro gun lie is, is working, or two that they want to say, let's get in and prevent this from happening. You know, we, we can stop it if we act now.

Whereas if they were to like recognize now that cat's out of the bag and these files are everywhere, but we're gonna make it illegal. It's kinda like, you know, why would we do anything about it at that point?

Sam Jacobs (13m 4s):

Right. And I totally agree with you. The framing on it is bad for pro-Second Amendment freedom people, because yeah, it's just, okay. So when, I mean, it's like when they, when they pivot to, well, why do you want to ban so-called assault rifles? Or why do you want to ban sec semi automatic rifles when most murders are committed with handguns? And it's like, you're just inviting them to then pivot the conversation to ban handguns.

Matthew Larosiere (13m 33s):

Yeah. And, and also like, even, Oh my God, this, you know, it reminds me of something that just triggers the ever loving hell out of me when they say, “No, no, it's not an assault rifle. It's a modern sporting rifle.” Or like, whatever, like no, shut up. It's an assault rifle. I have the right to my assault rifle. It's like leave me alone.

Sam Jacobs (13m 54s):

Right. No, totally. I completely agree. So why, I mean, other than the kind of more general, Second Amendment issue, you know why do you personally champion 3D printed guns? Like what does this offer that something I can buy down at my local gun shop or Donald my local pawn shop, doesn't.

Matthew Larosiere (14m 20s):

The freedom to be anything like, you know, I've got a lot of store-bought guns, right. But that doesn't change my life. Having a 3D printer in my life, and I was a fairly early adopter. It just changed the way I looked at things. I don't know how many people in your audience or whether you are like know fabricating, but once you own a welding machine, it changes the way you look at the world and this the same, it's the same kind of thing, except it takes a lot less training and a lot less initial investment, you've got this thing now that can turn thoughts into reality.

So it's the future. A for why I champion it. I mean, it's, it's an intersection of my interests. You know, I'm a, I'm a gun rights attorney. And I also, I care about everything related to that. And the First Amendment is really important. And the First Amendment is what protects us, you know, and enables us to share this information because you know where to, you know, how to cut out a receiver, how to, you know, make your own firearms at home. That's all protected information that needs to be robustly recognized. If we decide that, “Oh, well, you know, 3D models are different because they're new and spooky. And so they can’t be regulated.” Well, what's the purpose of the First Amendment now.

Sam Jacobs (15m 51s):

And that's kind of the, I mean, that's the entire argument against assault rifles, or however you wish to term as like, you know, new and scary equals not conceivable by the people who wrote the Constitution equals not subject to the Constitution.

Matthew Larosiere (16m 9s):

I always like to imagine what Thomas Jefferson would say. If I handed him an AK-74.

Sam Jacobs (16m 15s):

He would say it was awesome.

Matthew Larosiere (16m 17s):

I was gonna say, I doubt, he'd be like, “Oh, this is horrible.” He'd probably be like, “COOL! You don't even have to pack it. These things are... WHAT?!,” you know, it'd be, he'd be blown away. He'd want 12 of them. Right.

Sam Jacobs (16m 30s):

Right, yeah. God. Yeah, wished we had these!

Matthew Larosiere (16m 32s):

Yeah. These are so cool, you can blow off so many red coats with this.

Sam Jacobs (16m 37s):

So, you can obviously, as with anything else, I ask you feel free to decline to answer this, but what's the craziest thing you've ever made with the 3D printer.

Matthew Larosiere (16m 46s):

The craziest? I mean, define craziest.

Sam Jacobs (16m 49s):

I’d rather let you define craziest, because it was interesting to me because you're like, you know, basically kind of saying like your imagination is the limit on this or whatever you can conceive of you can theoretically make. I mean, obviously, you know, there's some technological limits there's, there's limits of capable capability or, you know, whatever, but, you know, what's kind of like an example of you wanting something that you can't get off the shelf, but you would say, well, you know what? I can just make it.

Matthew Larosiere (17m 26s):

I, gotcha. Yeah. I, oh, in a single week. I printed out a, like, there was a little plastic piece that broke on my car's mirror. And instead of spending $300 to get the whole new mirror, I just, I took the piece with some calipers. I took some measurements. I designed the part, I printed it out. And then a couple of days after that, it was one of my coworkers’ birthday. So I printed him a little octopus that had eight middle fingers being held up and he loved that.

And then, you know, a couple of weeks after that, I prototyped a fire control group housing for an old French carbine that used an AR-15 fire control group. Just, yeah. All of that in a couple of weeks.

Sam Jacobs (18m 13s):

It must really come in handy, especially because you talked about buying old, weird weapons and you also had a post that I thought was really funny, about a hundred year old European bolt action rifles. So I mean, I would imagine as somebody who is a collector of firearms, you know, even if you're not necessarily interested in printing a full weapon, for whatever reason, maybe you don't like how they look, maybe you just don't care. You don't want one, but it would seem like a 3D printer would really come in handy for even somebody who just collects old weapons that are, you know, like anything else that's going through that much stress is, is breaking down a lot and they can use a 3D printer to kind of extend the life.

Matthew Larosiere (18m 59s):

Right, yeah. There's all kinds of little ways that it can come in handy, you know, with restoration and preservation. And also, I mean, if you, and if you're into collecting old militaria, you're going to wind up with parts kits, you know, where the receivers are destroyed. There's been more than one time where I've just printed out the missing part. So I could have a display weapon.

Sam Jacobs (19m 26s):

And now I want to talk about what's going on in Michigan because it is a little old, but it still is crazy to me that they canceled their legislative session in response to the armed protestors who, you know, armed protesters is always another thing that's kind of like used as a scare word. But as you were saying before, like, so what, they're legally allowed to be, allowed is again, not the best word, but like they're exercising a constitutionally enumerated right in a way that's new and scary. Though I doubt it's new. And I also am skeptical to the degree to which it's actually scary and the degree to which it's, you know, a convenient way to act because it appears scary to outsiders. So can you kind of take us through like what happened in Michigan with those armed protests?

Matthew Larosiere (20m 23s):

Well, so basically, you know, you had the state government handed down a lot of very unaccountable orders, right? And the shutdown orders that were very wide reaching and people. And, you know, like, I, I actually like to refrain from talking about this kind of stuff, because there's this, there's this new orthodoxy that’s developed where you're not allowed to question the shutdown orders at all. So without me saying anything on whether the shutdown owners were good or bad, there were a bunch of people who thought they were bad and they decided to protest, right.

They're protesting for their, you know, what they perceive as an assault on their livelihood, their way of life, et cetera, you know, without proper due process from the government. So basically you've got a group of people that are saying, “Hey, you're violating my rights.” And you know, a group of them come just bearing arms peaceably. And so the media goes nuts, like says that these are armed right-wing blah, blah, blah. We're in, like, if you look at the pictures, there's, it's just a bunch of normal people.

And, and they make a blitz out of it. They shut down their session early. And I, you know, I don't know if they actually said it was for fear or if it was just like assumed it was, but then so of course the first thing they want to do now is take away the right of the people to carry arms in the state capital. So like that just seems, it just seems interesting to me, it's like, “Oh, they're mad at us for violating their rights. Why don't we take a right away that will fix it?”

Sam Jacobs (21m 59s):

Well, I mean, it would, but not in a good way. And it's interesting because we just recently did a podcast about Robert F. Williams, who, anybody who listening doesn't know, Robert F. Williams was a civil rights activist in the 1950s who responded to his community, being terrorized by the clan, by arming him and his comrades with weapons under the auspices of an NRA gun club.

And you should listen to our Robert F. Williams podcast about that. But one of the things we talk about in that podcast is the Mulford Act, which was passed by Governor Ronald Reagan, which always shocks people to, you know, which was one of the most sweeping gun control laws in the country at that time. And was specifically designed to prevent Black Panthers from protesting in a similar manner. But there's no, you know, I mean, there's no other right that you're not allowed to exercise within a hundred yards or whatever of the state house.

Matthew Larosiere (23m 9s):

And here's the other thing, right? So you have one of the most important core protected areas of the First Amendment is political assembly and political speech. So the fact that they're like, what they're basically saying is, “Okay, well, you can have your First Amendment right, and you can have your Second Amendment right. But not at the same time.” So that's nonsense. There is no, it's like, they're acting like there's an “or” in between the First and Second Amendment. It's like, “Oh, you can talk or you can gun,” you know, it's not, no we're allowed both and not, you know what I mean? It's not, you can't prohibit it. Is the best way to say it.

Sam Jacobs (23m 47s):

Yeah. And I mean, it's also, I don't want to, I generally try not to go too far down the, you know, aren't the Democratic party hypocrites kind of road because it's like, well, yeah. I mean, this is their whole thing is like freedom of speech is great when it helps our cause and not so great when it doesn't. And one of the things that we saw during the last presidential election, or at least in the aftermath of it was like, well, that's enough democracy and free speech for now.

We're going to kind of do what we can to, to shut all this down. But it still is astonishing to me, at least in some ways because I felt protests were good.

Matthew Larosiere (24m 30s):

Right. Well, they're good when you agree with them. So, I mean, I can, you know, that's a forgivable error you just made.

Sam Jacobs (24m 39s):

[Laughing] Right. What is, I mean, what kind of legal ground does the attorney general of Pennsylvania have to stand on with this ghost guns thing? Cause it sounds, I mean, I understand the whole, the whole way this works is they fly up a trial balloon and they see to what degree it works. But this one seems, really, this one seems really seems like a bit of a reach to me as a layman in and out, and, you know, an outsider and as much as I'm not an attorney, and I'm not, I'm in the trenches of, of this kind of litigation or legislation, like what kind of leg does he have to stand on if any, if any, or is it just a, you know, everyone's looking at the lockdown and I think I can slam this through kind of thing.

Matthew Larosiere (25m 24s):

Which thing are we talking about now?

Sam Jacobs (25m 27s):

The attorney general Josh Shapiro's, you know, reclassifying 80% receivers as firearms.

Matthew Larosiere (25m 36s):

So yeah, what he was doing there is trying to interpret police powers. Basically he was doing like a triple, like triple stuffed bad interpretation bingo, to like use this law to give him power to act here, which then enables him to reclassify this, you know, like it's, it was, it was a bunch of nonsense. And like, I mean, you know, very conveniently at this at the same time that Bloomberg had just pushed this new agenda. Of course, Josh Shapiro comes out with it, but no, it's, it's, it's a bunch of crap.

There was no vagueness in the law that justified his re-interpretation. And you know, this is, this has happened a while ago. And there were a lot of developments since, you know, he was prevented from engaging in that before.

Sam Jacobs (26m 31s):

And you guys got a temporary injunction against him, correct. Yeah. And then kind of what's the future of the, of the issue.

Matthew Larosiere (26m 41s):

Yeah, no, you, I mean, this, this might be to some of your listeners, but you're not supposed to just like make the law up, [Laughing] you know, especially when you're the Attorney General, you're supposed to, you know, faithfully read and enforce it, not just divine garbage into it. Well, the funny thing about this is, he tried to reinterpret Pennsylvania code which defined a firearm. And there's one little like, like skin tag on the definition, which is about readily convertible firearms.

And what this is really about is like a long time ago, back when the law was written, you could buy these starter guns, which were like sold as race starter guns, which were just like junky .25 caliber and .22 caliber pistols that had something shoved into the barrel and you’d unshove the barrel. So that's what it was really about. And so he, they tried to claim that, you know, a hunk of aluminum is readily convertible to a firearm.

In which case it's like, you know, what does that make the STEN gun then is every, you know, every exhaust pipe a sub machine gun now it's, it's just preposterous. There's no way to, like, there would be no way to rationally enforce something like that, you know, without it being unconstitutionally vague.

Sam Jacobs (28m 2s):

Do you know if there's any plans to, I mean, I'm presuming that Attorney General Shapiro is not just dropping it at, at this and that there'll be further action. Do you know anything about what's going to come down the pipe with that?

Matthew Larosiere (28m 20s):

Yeah. There's no real way to know. I, I can't assume that they're going to take it laying down, but you know, we'll just have to wait and see. I mean, of course I think we're right.

Sam Jacobs (28m 34s):

What do you think the future of 3D printed guns is, do you think that they're just kind of a niche thing for hobbyists and that kind of thing? Or do you think that they have a broader appeal?

Matthew Larosiere (28m 49s):

Let me tell you something, man, they've got a much broader appeal and I'm very excited to be working on some projects that are going to make some changes in this space. I wish I could say much more than that, but let me just give you an example. If you go on any of Hi-Point’s social media, you'll see all anybody are doing are demanding that they sell parts kits. And that's because the guys in these 3D printing communities, and these are, I just want to stress, these young men are absolute heroes for our generation.

These guys are unbelievable. They work hours and hours and hours in between their real job on these collaborative efforts to design 3D printable frames, you know, for available firearms parts kits. And then they release them for free online just because they love freedom. And so they did that for the Hi-Point. And it's one of the better designs for 3D printing because, you know, you don't need, you don't need many moving parts.

You know, it's direct blowback. The demand for the parts kits was so high that now the parts kits cost more than the guns themselves. You just can't get them. So I think that tells you something. I think that tells you people, people want to be able to get a firearm and build it themselves. And you know, it's their right. There are so many people to where getting a firearm is just way too difficult for something as essential as it is.

Like, imagine if you live out in the middle of the country, your nearest transfer agent is an hour away, right? And that's a real thing for plenty of people. So you've got to get that gun ordered in, take time out of your schedule, go drive up there, pay that person a gatekeeper's fee, right? Why do that? What this is saying is not, you know, skip that mess. If you need a gun, you know, and, and it's legal for you to have it, order your parts and make it that's, that's the direction it's going in.

It's only getting better. There's all kinds of exciting projects. Every, you know, every week I see something new in these channels, we're in where we discuss the development. It's big. It's not, it's not just a little novelty. You know, this is, this is big stuff. These guys are developing ammunition that you can make at home. And I don't mean like, you know, like reloading, because I'm a reloader, I don't mean getting yourself some tightgroup and some primers and slapping it together.

No, I mean, homemade gunpowder, homemade priming compound, like that's how much these people are working to decentralize the industry on arms and just create a pro freedom world.

Sam Jacobs:

How does a homemade gunpowder work?

Matthew Larosiere (31m 52s):

Literally there is a group of chemists from all over the world that we're talking in this, you know, in this channel and they, they were comparing, you know, what chemicals can you, can you get in this country, this country, this country.

And they got together and they, you know, like this stuff is all magic to me, right? Like I'm a lawyer. I count on my fingers and I don't understand chemistry, but they figured out a formula to make repeatable, consistent powder, like smokeless powder. And you know, this isn't like grinding it out of a tree someplace like the olden olden days. This is pretty consistent smokeless powder. That's made with stuff that you can get anywhere. And they're going to be releasing that hopefully very soon.

Sam Jacobs:

It's, it's a very different world that we're moving into. And one of the things that I find most interesting about the people who kind of want to shut down the whole 3D printer thing is just, I don't know how realistically you could do it. You know, that's one of the things that's kind of most interesting to me about it is that we know basically the technologies, revolutionary technologies are kind of hard to stick back in the bottle, right? Like once it gets out, there's not really any way to shut it down and sure you can start throwing people in jail for it, but the actual technology will be there.

And that's kind of one of the main, perhaps the Achilles heel of the entire argument is that, you know, there's no reason to believe that anybody who's determined enough is going to not be able to leverage these technologies. I mean, it's the old, like when guns are outlawed only outlaws of guns thing, except now outlaws won't even need to like find a buyer. They'll just need to find the right bits and bobs and be able to put it together.

Matthew Larosiere (33m 46s):

Right. And, and I mean, that's what the FCG 9 is, which, I mean, you can look up online videos, that thing running, and it runs pretty good. And it's not made with any gun parts, you know, that can be made anywhere. And it's just, it's all about freedom. These guys, and by the way, you know, banning it or whatever, wouldn't make a difference because these guys are already operating anonymously. They assume, you know that because the US government isn't friendly to this, the US government doesn't want, you know, we've seen this with ongoing litigation involving Defense Distributed.

They don't want you posting the designs online. So these guys who are designing these, these guns and posting them online, they're already doing it quietly. They're already doing it under pseudonyms. And, and you know, it's not stopping the progress, but what I think it does show, and that's why this is like one of the main reasons I think these guys are heroes. Nobody knows their names. They put in all this time, they don't get a dollar. All they did is put freedom out there for other people.

And I think that, you know, I really hope that at some point in our country, we get to the point where we can, these guys can tell their names, you know, and we can celebrate these people because they're special.

Sam Jacobs (35m 11s):

Well, I want to thank you for joining us. Where can everybody find you on the internet?

Matthew Larosiere (35m 15s):

You can follow me on Twitter at MATTLAATLAW. It's MattLa At Law. We also post on FirearmsPolicy.org. I do a weekly update there that goes on YouTube and the Gun Policy Instagram and everything. So definitely check that product out. I, I really do like the weekly update, just kind of puts all of the, you know, legislative and legal gun law updates into one place for you.

Sam Jacobs (35m 38s):

It really is a great resource for anybody who wants to follow the kind of legislative and, and machinations that are coming after your Second Amendment rights again. Thanks. Thanks for joining us. And thanks to everybody who listened. If you would like to get some cheap ammunition for your non 3D printed guns, you can go to Ammo.com/podcast. I'm Sam Jacobs, and we'll see you next time.