The release of downloadable 3-D-printed gun plans has both public officials and private citizens fired up on the issues of crime, safety and constitutional rights.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro joined a movement to sue the State Department in an effort to prevent Texas-based Defense Distributed and other similar groups from releasing the digital blueprints, which can be used with a 3-D printer to create homemade firearms. Democratic attorneys general from Washington, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Oregon, Maryland, New York and the District of Columbia were also part of the lawsuit.

Digital firearms nonprofit Defense Distributed initially planned to publish files for a variety of weapons, including the AR-15, Beretta 92FS and a single shot .380-caliber gun made almost completely from plastic called the “Liberator,” on Tuesday, but ended up posting the files ahead of schedule on Friday.

U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik blocked a settlement from President Donald Trump’s administration that would have originally allowed for the release of the plans on Tuesday, though by that point, tens of thousands of schematics had already been downloaded. The “Liberator” was one of the most popular models.

As of Tuesday morning, New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal said that Defense Distributed had agreed not to upload any new printable gun codes until a court hearing in September. Currently, a court order blocks those with a New Jersey, Pennsylvania or Los Angeles IP address from downloading plans from Defense Distributed’s website.

That may not matter, however, since the website Code Is Free Speech posted the plans for seven weapons on Tuesday. A combined effort of the Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, The Calguns Foundation, California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees and various individuals, the site’s mission statement declares that citizens have a right to the plans under the helm of free speech.

“Gun control is a fallacy and it always has been,” Brandon Combs, president of Firearms Policy Coalition in California, said.

“All it does on the net is to put peaceful people in legal jeopardy and restrict fundamental, individual freedoms. We recognize that some people are having a hard time coming to grips with both reality and technology. Suppression of this firearms technology information, and related speech, is itself a violent and tyrannical act against the people. We hope that we have helped make the world more knowledgeable and free.”

Local law enforcement agencies, however, are worried about the implications of unregistered weapons.

“Right now it’s obviously in the hands of courts and legislators, so nothing has reached our office. We have no cases pending. But, as a general matter, law enforcement is concerned about people being able to skirt current laws and just make guns without serial numbers, which are untraceable, for crime,” Carbon County District Attorney Jean Engler said.

“A lot of them being made from plastic to get them past security. There’s no law abiding reason that that would be done, so that’s obviously a concern.”

‘Too easy to access’

Combs argued that firearm registration is in no way connected to the right to bear arms.

“Ultimately, registration’s only real utility is to provide a convenient way for the government to identify people and property to target for enforcement actions as more and more categories of people, firearms and firearm parts are banned,” he said.

Of course, with a number of recent school shootings, the prospect of a weapon with no serial numbers or registration that can potentially beat a metal detector or other security measures is troubling.

Palmerton Police Chief Randy Smith said that any additional access to weaponry is a concern for the entire country, and that the prospect of free plans for 3-D guns will only make the matter worse.

“I’m not in favor of them,” he said.

“It’s too easy to access, and someone is going to get killed. Can you imagine someone trying to sneak that into a school building?”

When it comes to culpability if a person used a plan from Defense Distributed, Code Is Free Speech or any other site to craft a weapon for a crime, Combs said that those who disseminate the files should not be held responsible.

“We don’t believe that people who publish truthful information can or should be criminally punished for that speech,” he said.

The National Rifle Association has addressed the potential for criminal use by pointing out that legislation for such weapons already exists.

“Many anti-gun politicians and members of the media have wrongly claimed that 3-D printing technology will allow for the production and widespread proliferation of undetectable plastic firearms. Regardless of what a person may be able to publish on the Internet, undetectable plastic guns have been illegal for 30 years. Federal law passed in 1988, crafted with the NRA’s support, makes it unlawful to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive an undetectable firearm,” Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement released on Tuesday.

The undetectable plastic firearms legislation does require that any such weapons contain a metal element, which models like the “Liberator” do.

However, critics have pointed out the metallic piece for that firearm is nonessential, and if removed or replaced with a plastic piece, it could hypothetically allow people to bring the “Liberator” into sensitive areas. Gene Hoffman, chairman of the Calguns Foundation, said that this is a moot point, as the necessary ammunition is metallic and would set off a detector. The firearm is essentially useless on its own, Hoffman said.

3-D printers are available for as low as $199, but quality 3-D printers can range from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And as of now, Engler said, the key point is that the very people who you wouldn’t want to have access to that technology can easily afford it, and that is why it is necessary to prevent the spread of 3-D printed weapons.

“Several thousand dollars is not a lot of money to a drug dealer, not a lot of money to people who have access to legally or illegally gotten gains,” she said.

Related Article