DoD Descends On DEFCAD

First time accepted submitter He Who Has No Name writes "While the ATF appears to have no open objection to 3D printed firearms at this time, the Department of Defense apparently does. A short while ago, '#DEFCAD has gone dark at the request of the Department of Defense Trade Controls. Take it up with the Secretary of State' appeared on the group's site, and download links for files hosted there began to give users popups warning of the DoD takeover." Well, that didn't take long. Note: As of this writing, the site is returning an error, rather than the message above, but founder Cody Wilson has posted a similar message to twitter. At least the Commander in Chief is in town to deliver the message personally. Update: 05/09 21:17 GMT by T : Tweet aside, that should be Department of State, rather than Department of Defense, as many readers have pointed out. (Thanks!)

Comments

wtf

[Aryden]

The real question is, when did we give the DoD control over domestic actions? The constitution strictly prohibits the military from acting as a policing force on US soil. So, who the hell gave them the right to take down a domestic website?

Re:The horse has left the barn...

[He Who Has No Name]

You know, you can always use printed parts to cast molds and pour aluminum parts from them (or even steel if you're brave).

You could also bootstrap yourself a David Gingery lathe and turn a barrel from scrap steel if you wanted.

Just saying.

Re:Uh, no.

[Prien715]

s/nuclear bomb/arms/

What you are missing here is that these files this guy is sharing are essentially just descriptions of shapes and therefore typically would be considered speech. The files then let you make nuclear weapons (though really poor quality ones). He is sharing information though, not nuclear weapons, which is why this has been transmuted from a second amendment issue to a first amendment one.

Arms=small arms and nuclear arms. Free speech famously has limits (falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) so where do we draw the line here?

Re:Uh, no.

[Jane Q. Public]

"... so where do we draw the line here?"

This does not come anywhere near the line.

You can buy books published by the U.S. Government on how to make booby traps, home-made bombs and explosives, and so on. They are military books. But the government has no copyrights in most circumstances, so they are available for the public to freely copy and distribute. And our form of government can't work any other way.

More to the point: the Government also can't publish books on a subject themselves, then deny the right of others to do the same.

State Department means Hillary Clinton, who is an anti-gunner. (No doubt this administration looked high and low for some kind of excuse to restrict this.) If it's restricted by the State Department, that means it's restricted for export to other countries. They MIGHT, just barely, be able to make some kind of case of that nature.

They would not, however, be able to restrict sale or distribution of plans within the U.S.

Re:Uh, no.

[ClioCJS]

Instructions for creating nuclear bomb are a google away.