Slashdot Mirror
With 3D Printer Gun Files, National Security Interest Trumps Free Speech, Court Rules (arstechnica.com)
A federal appeals court ruled this week against Defense Distributed, the Texas organization that promotes 3D-printed guns, in a lawsuit that it brought last year against the State Department. In a 2-1 decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was not persuaded that Defense Distributed's right to free speech under the First Amendment outweighs national security concerns. From an ArsTechnica report: The majority concluded: 'Ordinarily, of course, the protection of constitutional rights would be the highest public interest at issue in a case. That is not necessarily true here, however, because the State Department has asserted a very strong public interest in national defense and national security. Indeed, the State Department's stated interest in preventing foreign nationals -- including all manner of enemies of this country -- from obtaining technical data on how to produce weapons and weapon parts is not merely tangentially related to national defense and national security; it lies squarely within that interest.'
They act as if these are nuclear or biological weapons. There is no compelling interest in keeping plans for primitive 3D printed guns away from anyway, and there is no possible argument that there is.
This is nothing new, Philip Zimmermann was receiving similar threats during the first crypto-war so published the source code of PGP in a book (https://www.amazon.com/PGP-Internals-Philip-R-Zimmermann/dp/0262240394/) and more or less dared the feds to ban a book.
He won.
(this is the short version).
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Print the code for the lower receiver in a book.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
because the State Department has asserted a very strong public interest in national defense and national security
It's nice when people express an interest in my life, but when they start demanding information it gets creepy, and when they start using it as a justification for violating my rights it has become abusive.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Improvised firearms are simple to make with little skill, see the Royal Nonesuch YouTube channel for proof.
The blueprints for the Colt AR-15 have been available on the internet for years, it's just that taking those and producing an actual firearm has been difficult.
I'm not so sure it's about the proliferation of firearms as much as it is an effort to control our society by denying them access to information. It has been proven time and again that ne'er do wells *DO* obtain firearms illegally.
Those people who are always worrying about "activist" judges should look at this case.
It appears to me that the court has used a completely made-up "national security exception" to override a clear constitutional right.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Is this any different than the thousands of plans online to make guns?
There are many websites hosted in the U.S. I can visit right now and download templates, .pdfs and instructions on how to manufacture my own guns.
It also isn't illegal in any way to make a gun (For personal use) as long as the end result does not violate federal, state or local laws.
As far I'm concerned, the only difference is the file format, so I expect this will get overturned.
Also, as others have mentioned, Zimmermann. To think we used to have illegal math in this country.
The government really is out to get them, by any means including corrupting the rule of law to do so.
Banning means of obtaining personal weapons (like the one used to stop Minnesota Stabby) is clearly not a national security issue, indeed the prevention of means to allow law abiding citizens to acquire guns is far more clearly against the interests of the people - fewer guns mean more rapes, mean more crime, mean more violence against the weak and elderly.
So we see from this ruling that "national security" has nothing to do with the interests of the people, only the government.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Much as I hate to defend either of the two bobble-heads, Trump did not make a veiled threat against Clinton. Saying "You're against guns? Why not see what happens when your secret service detail doesn't have any" is not a threat. It's a challenge to hypocrisy - that the little people should have fewer rights.
Of course, there's no possibility of having a rational law passed (or even a rational debate) on gun control in the US. That's a dog-whistle issue for both sides.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Well, they certainly showed that the 1st means nothing when it comes to their own interests (staying in power and not having to justify their illegal actions). Just ask Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
> Seeing that there's no longer a militia needed to repair foreign invaders, the 2nd no longer has justification.
I think you meant repel and that was not the intent. I know you have some warped and incorrect assumption about why there is a second amendment but there are plenty of supplementary materials produced describing how and why the drafters came up with the amendments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... might lead you to some facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... must have been a crackpot in your eyes, despite the fact that he lived in the society that resulted in the laws you now interpret incorrectly.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
These files are in the open. The are publicly available to anyone who wants to look. I found several in minutes.
This ITAR issue is prior restraint...trying to put the genie back into the bottle. It reminds me of the silliness in trying to get people with security clearances to not read the Snowden files.
It is public record. Subjecting it to ITAR at this point simply makes it glaringly clear just how incompatible ITAR is with Constitutional principles.
While you may feel there is no justification, the militia still exists, it is every man (and now woman) between 18-45. It is the unorganized militia. The organized militia, aka the army and national guard, are codified in the body of the constitution. And alas, the militia is a rational for the amendment but is not primary to its existence. The militia clause represents only the hint of justification given the dialogue that the founding fathers had. The purpose of the 2d is best expressed as a means to allow Everyman be armed least the government become tyrannical in nature. It is to allow domestic rebellion if the government of and by the people abandons the tenants of basic freedoms.
Don't be retarded. "Security of the state" is a lot broader than "foreign invaders". Shit, we could be 7 weeks away from electing one of the two most unscrupulous candidates to ever run for president, and you _still_ want people to give up the only thing that denies the government absolute power.
under the same banner as shouting fire in a theater? It's long since been agreed upon that the gov't can put reasonable restrictions on free speech. At this point we're just arguing over the definition of 'reasonable'. Preventing the existence of completely untraceable guns and the tech to make them seems 'reasonable' to me.
You can argue that point, you can even argue that I should be able to shout fire in that theater. But it's not fair to call the judge "activist" or declare the issue settled. In fact, at the moment it's pretty well settled against your line of reasoning.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
When are these fuckers going to learn that National Security as defined by a secret tribunal does NOT overrule the constitution. I think we need to broaden the definition of treason to include any act that unlawfully and deliberately undermines the good faith enforcement of our constitution.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
Seeing that there's no longer blah blah blah, the 2nd no longer has justification.
Since there's no longer anyone alive who was born a slave in the US who needs to become a citizen, the 14th amendment no longer has justification either.
(See, two can play at that game!)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Did you miss the terror attacks this past weekend, or the many that came before them? We're being invaded by an ideology that wants us all dead. "Lone wolfs" that aren't actually lone. It may be recent immigrants, it may be the offspring of immigrants. But the ideology is the same. The foreign countries they visit before becoming radicalized tend to be the same. St Cloud could have been worse if not for the armed off-duty cop. Some of the other attacks might have been stopped sooner if more people exercised their 2nd amendment right.
Look at what happened in Nice. Eighty six dead and four hundred thirty four wounded. Or the Bataclan theater. Those types of attacks could easily happen here too. It'd be a shame if we let the government outlaw self defense. It's bad enough we have "gun free" murder zones. People are so busy attacking the 2nd and organizations like the NRA that they're losing track of what's really going on. NRA members aren't running around killing innocent people. No one guns down the innocent and yells "the NRA is great!" No one holds people at gunpoint and asks them to recite the second amendment to decide whether or not to execute them.
By the way, 911 isn't always available. We've had looters break and enter after severe winter storms in the north east. That's a major problem if you're in a small town that may not even have a full time police force. You're either armed or you're a victim. But that's fine with you right? So what if people die that might have been able to save themselves, you were a proper liberal!
Ignoring two of the amendments in the bill of rights in the same ruling? Impeach and disbar those motherfucking shysters.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Also, we are no longer in danger of the government suppressing free speech, so the 1st amendment no longer has justification either.
Didn't some asshole in France just prove that you don't need a gun to cause bloody mayhem anywhere you have a truck and a bunch of people?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Writing this as someone who listens with open ears and mind when you speak on matters concerning gender spectrum, trans/gay and trans/straight community relations, gender intelligence, etc. You are cogent, empathetic, and well read; all qualities I respect and that I look for and notice. And, as a personal note, I prefer the company of people who can face themselves and choose to drop societal norms and external reference points for their identity and in doing so free themselves to truly be themselves. I get from reading your posts that you have done this, and traveled a road that many of us don't have the fortitude to face.
So, with all of your intentionality in creating an online persona that has credibility in the realms I mentioned above, why oh why would you repeat such an obviously fabricated attack on the 2nd amendment that is so easily contradicted with authoritative sources?
I honestly would like to know. I respect your intelligence and the strength you show in standing for others. It is inspiring. What I can't fathom is how something like this juvenile misrepresentation of fact could slip by you. If you would like to oppose gun rights there are better approaches than this thoroughly debunked intentional misreading of the constitution. I challenge you to do better. Not that I support curtailing gun rights for law abiding citizens, far from it. I just know from reading your posts that you are capable of a better argument than that.
As steel sharpens steel, so one mind sharpens another.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
...because, no matter how closely I scrutinize the text of the First Amendment, I can't find this "national security" exclusion they're talking about.
Too right. And when I sell goods/services/information to North Korea or Iran, I should be allowed to do so because it's an expression of my free speech, because I don't see ITAR mentioned in the constitution either.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Here I was thinking that national defense was the purview of a different department... The name escapes me at the moment.
Euro Truck Simulator: Allah Expansion Pack
So what if people die that might have been able to save themselves, you were a proper liberal!
I'd consider myself extremely liberal and I own guns. Lots of guns, include the "terrible awful scary black guns" (AR-15, etc) as well as Glocks, .45s, various 9mm's, etc etc. I've also carried daily for 30+ years. You'd be surprised how many "liberals" like and own guns. Please don't paint us all with the same, broad brush.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Seeing that there's no longer a militia needed to repair foreign invaders, the 2nd no longer has justification.
I think you're being sarcastic but in case you're not, the 2nd Amendment isn't just about "foreign invaders". It's not about hunting, either. It's about self defense, and that includes defending oneself from an out-of-control, oppressive government as well as threats from outside the country.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Didn't some asshole in France just prove that you don't need a gun to cause bloody mayhem anywhere you have a truck and a bunch of people?
I wonder how long it will be until we get autonomous terrorist vehicle rampages?
Come play Moral Decay!
Shit, we could be 7 weeks away from electing one of the two most unscrupulous candidates to ever run for president, and you _still_ want people to give up the only thing that denies the government absolute power.
Saying it is the "only" thing is not accurate. I actually think the "primary" thing standing in they way of a tyrannical government are the countless government employees and members of the armed forces who would refuse to follow such orders and would actively work to prevent them from being implemented. That includes the bureaucracy and military chain of command.
Come play Moral Decay!
The real problem is that people are allowed to distribute 90% receivers without serial numbers in the first place, not that somebody made a cheap CNC machine to turn them into finished receivers. Fix the real problem, control the receivers just like finished rifles! What we currently have is a loophole that allows any decent machinist to create untracked weapons. Althought personally, I thought the whole thing was a honeypot designed to get the contact info for crackpots and terrorists in the first place; if it wasn't I might have ordered one.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Yes and no. We should try to control the tools that provide leverage to make lone nuts capable of doing more damage. But ultimately, once the tool is created, it's released from Pandora's box and can never be completely locked back in again. Information not only want to be free, digital information is easily almost infinitely reproducible which makes it effectively impossible to destroy.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I haven't read the opinion, but did the court say that because non-Americans might do bad things, it's ok to strip Americans of their rights in order to prevent non-Americans from doing bad things?
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Trump later downplayed this in various ways, but what it SOUNDS like is a suggestion that if Hillary packs courts with judges that deny rights, that the " Second Amendment people" (gun advocates?) could do something that others couldn't... Which could be interpreted as a call for assassination.
Obviously Trump didn't explicitly say that. But you have to admit that this quote sounds pretty bad the way it came out.
If a terrorist was going to bother to make a gun, why wouldn't they use 150 year old methods rather than 3D printing one?
Aside from very underpowered calibers such as .22 or .380ACP, to have an entirely 3D printed gun that fires a normal standard self-defense or carbine round requires laser sintered metal process, plastic doesn't work without significant risk of explosion.
AK-47 variants on the black market can be had for $250 to $600 in various parts of the world. Not seeing any reason a terrorist would even stoop to wasting the time to make a gun.
... In a country wher it is legal to build your own gun (as long as you do not sell it) is it ever questionable that you should not be allowed to 3D print one?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So when are you going to pass the Equal Rights Amendment to constitutionally guarantee equal rights for women? It's only been proposed since 1923. That's a longer delay than passing the 14th amendment.(by a year, so far). Not being wiling to guarantee rights to the majority of the population makes your whole political process look ridiculous in this day and age.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Played well against the people, armed forces will be quite happy to lend the government a helping hand. All you need is near total control of mainstream media and a few provocations. This happened MANY times in the past, just not in the US. It is foolish to think it can't happen here.
So prevent it by banning all travel to places like Afghanistan. Take in the refugees, but don't let them go back and get indoctrinated. If they leave the US, revoke their citizenship and refuse all re-entry. THAT makes more sense than putting a wall up between the US and Mexico.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
NYTimes published full manual on making an atomic bomb in the 80's. That was deemed protected speech despite the fact that the non-proliferation treaty was more than a mere piece of paper at the time. Certainly that endangered national security. Dissemination of source code for all crypto is also considered protected (although not dissemination of compiled code). This seems to go against the standard that blueprints for making dangerous apparatus is protected. Considering that possession of a printed gun itself is protected by the 2nd amendment, how is this more dangerous than printing nuke manuals?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Making semiauto or single-shot firearms for personal use is 100% legal in the US but a plastic gun that will blow up in your face after 20 rounds is teh evilz....
PDF books containing blueprints for real zip guns and submachine guns you can make in your basement like the Sten Mk II are ok.
PDF books containing plans and construction guidelines for submachine guns you can construct from materials at the hardware store are ok.
The Anarchist Cookbook is ok.
There is even court precedent proving that these were all considered free speech. If "duh terrists" and foreign nationals are a concern, then simply block all non-US traffic to download the materials and throw up a disclaimer citing arms export restrictions. If they manipulate a proxy to get it from abroad they've committed an act of cyberwarfare and subverted your security. Not your problem.
Refuse people re-entry but leave our borders wide open? There's a good plan. I'm sure those that leave and get radicalized wouldn't try to sneak back in. I mean, if you can't trust a terrorist, who can you trust? Right?
And no, let's not take in the refugees. Greece already let a terrorist in that was posing as a refugee. A lot of people in France paid for that mistake with their lives. Hillary mocked Trump's "strict vetting", yet she's now proposing "strict vetting" as well. I'd prefer no vetting. Let the oil-rich Arab countries take in the refugees. It would be less distance and less of a culture shock. It makes far more sense than sending people all the way over here where they have no familiarity with anything or anyone.
If there's more than one of you, you're part of a very quiet group.
Don't change the subject.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Thanks for the compliments. I've already said elsewhere that gun control such as is practiced in other countries is impossible in the United States. There are just too many guns out there, and there is no workable solution because you will never get all the states to work in concert. So whether the 2nd Amendment continues to exist or is repealed, nothing will change.
Hopefully eventually enough people will realize this and we can tone down the NRA-type craziness, and at least put in some controls, such as mandatory background checks and firearm registration. Neither one would interfere with people's right to own a firearm for legitimate reasons. Reducing poverty FOR ALL GROUPS, improved access to help for mental illnesses FOR ALL WHO NEED IT, and better education for all FOR ALL WHO WANT IT would also reduce the pool of people who resort to firearms, either for violence, or to commit suicide.
The majority of all firearm deaths are suicide by firearm. Passing laws won't change this, but those last three suggestions would reduce deaths by an important margin, and they don't infringe on anyone's rights. Unfortunately, a direct appeal to reason won't work or we'd already have these three in place for other reasons. If you've got any ideas on how to achieve this short of putting something in the water supply I'm all ears, because I'm all out.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Of course I'm being sarcastic. I'm on record as saying gun control as practiced in other countries is impossible. However, if we did a better job on mental illness, we could eliminate the majority of gun deaths (which is by suicide by firearm). That is something we should all work for, for many reasons.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
and not the foundation of the legal theory. Put another way, if I say out loud how nice it would be if somebody would shoot an enemy of mine when I know damn well someone in the audience is going to do it that's not "Free Speech". Should it be? I'm pretty sure the answer is 'No'. You don't get to incite people to commit crimes. But it's still speech. You're either going to draw the line or your not. But at some point I can probably find something abhorrent enough to you personally to get you to draw that line.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Sorry, but it's not worth having an armed society just to save a few hundred people a decade. The number of extra people murdered in the US attributable to private gun ownership far, far exceeds that.
Note that the French president just reaffirmed France's commitment to take in Syrian refugees, despite the terror attacks. That's true courage, not letting the terrorists win by destroying the French way of life and basic humanity towards those in need. Arming up is the cowardly option.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
US Supreme court ....
Have gnu, will travel.
Do you really believe that abolishing the second amendment will change anything? Ain't gonna happen. As for Trump's remark, the guy's a buffoon. If he were almost anyone else, Clinton wouldn't have a hope in hell of winning. He might very well become the next president, but presidents don't have much ability to do anything on their own, and this applies to both Clinton and Trump.
It would take a long time to get any case before the Supreme Court, and if I were living in Detroit I might want a firearm myself. On a practical note, there are too many firearms in the country to actually enforce a severe ban.
Instead, we should be pushing for better mental health programs, programs that get people out of poverty, and better access to education for all. That would reduce gun deaths without needing to go to the court, and would be a positive move for the whole country.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The judge's basic assertion is that "these newer laws trump the consitution", and legally speaking, that's backwards.
The first time this opinion is strongly challenged should be intereting.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Letting Saudi Arabia take them is a bad idea - Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorists. Their treatment of refugees would just radicalize them - they don't have to treat them any worse than most non-Saudi workers.
A wall between the US and Mexico won't work. As one border patrol agent said, the higher we build it, the bigger the ladder they bring. This doesn't mean that it's not possible to build an electronic wall to detect anyone crossing, and it would be cheaper.
Strict vetting works. Canada worked with UN agencies to vet people who had been in camps for years, and the 35,000 refugees that were admitted over a 6-month period seem to be working out well enough thatPrime Minister Trudeau is now working with the UN and George Soros to export Canada's refugee private sponsorship program to other countries.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The subject is the constitution. Besides, there are far too many guns in the US to actually enforce a clamp-down without the populace being on-side. Better to work on better mental health to reduce the number of firearm deaths by more than half (suicide is the #1 cause, almost 2/3 of all gun deaths).
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If there's more than one of you, you're part of a very quiet group.
That's exactly it- we're the ordinary gun owners, not the wild-eyed bunch screaming at the top of our lungs about how "the gub'mint gonna be comin' fo ouah gunz!!"
But I know a lot of liberal people and a lot of them own guns. A lot of them.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Murder won't stop if firearms are outlawed. Like the saying goes, then only the criminals will have guns. The rest of us would become easy targets. And even if we could erase every gun from reality, there are countless other ways to kill people. How many people died on 9/11 where the weapons used were mere box cutters? In St Cloud, it was a knife. In NY, a kitchen appliance. The Boston marathon before that. In Nice, a truck.. which could easily happen here. We accomplish nothing by trying to repeal our right of self defense. All it would do is make it easier for evil people to do evil things. You'd save more lives by banning fatty foods. But that's not going to happen either.
Hollande is done. He's doubling down on Merkel's stupidity. He'll be lucky if they don't drag the guillotine back out. Britain is leaving the EU. France will be next once Marine Le Pen takes over. The left's inability to listen and admit their mistakes is putting the nationalists in power. France is suffering not only from terror attacks, but also near endless protesting. They're on the brink. Germany is no better. They're censoring and arresting wrong-thinkers like crazy. She'll be looked back on as the one individual most responsible for the end of the EU.
The French way of life is almost over. They've been invaded. They've suffered non-stop violence. No one except the nationalists have put forward any plan to protect the public. Look at the lawlessness in Calais. Tell me how Hollande has improved that situation. He hasn't. He can't. You've confused cowardice with courage. Trump pointed out in a visit to Belgium that they were taking a great risk with their policies on immigrants. He was called a racist. Then they were attacked. He was still called a racist. But he hasn't backed down. That's courage. Hollande taking a blind eye to the destruction of his country, that's cowardice.
If America is truly great, you have no need to fear its citizens being armed. Otherwise you're saying they can't be trusted and you wish to control them. That's not how our nation works. The mere fact that you think the government should take our guns away is the proof that says we need them.
If Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorists then Hillary Clinton should stop taking money from them.
I don't care if the wall is concrete, metal, electronic, robotic, or just a damn mine field. I want to see a real effort to defend the borders. It's one of the few things the federal government is actually supposed to do.
I'm sticking to "no refugees". We're taken enough tired and poor over the years. It's time for other nations to step up and do their part. We're due for a break. We don't need to be the next Europe. Hell, pretty soon the refugees will have taken over Europe and they'll have no need to come here.
You really should have a chat with someone about getting your meds adjusted.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Uh, who exactly are you arguing with? I made no statements for or against any political position here. I was only posting to point out the quote that the first person you were replying to was likely referring to, rather than the one you quoted.
Of course the announcement would come from them.
>> National Security Interest Trumps Free Speech
Trump detected !
aaaaaaa
The "classified" and other similar "top secret" only binds military and contract personnel. Find it on the street, do what you want with it, if you're not legally binded as a military or a contractor.
aaaaaaa
It is likewise foolish to absolve members of the military from their responsibility to question their orders by suggesting that blindly following them against the citizenry is "ok" or "expected".
Come play Moral Decay!
Privately owned guns are used tens of thousands of times a year to stop and prevent violence. I have personally used one, without firing it, to end a very violent situation involving a stranger presenting an imminent threat to a family member's life. You would prefer that the person in question be allowed to hurt or kill somebody, and then we all wait half an hour for the police to come and write up a report about what happened. People are murdered every week using mostly illegally possessed guns, but also knives, cars, clubs, matches, rope, bare hands, and more. You want the victims of those crimes to be defenseless. Why?
If there's more than one of you, you're part of a very quiet group.
Exactly. You have no idea how quiet most gun owners are on the subject. There are many millions of us - and oddly enough the overwhelming majority of us, essentially ALL of us, commit no crimes whatsoever. People who own cars are far more deadly. Why should law abiding gun owners be screechy or loud about it? When we feel the need for a strong push-back against legislative or executive over-reach, we pay a skilled representative organization to handle that for us.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Yes you're right. It should probably be repealed or amended. But the amendment still remains, and I can't say it's a good idea for fundamental laws to be ignored in this way.
If a terrorist wants to print a gun, is he going to mind that he is breaking the law? This law doesn't protect us from terrorism. Once the capability to print guns is there, no amount of legislating is going to prevent anyone from getting some gun designs form the black market, or from the internet, or even design their own. Pandora's box has been already opened.
What I find most troubling is that the vast majority of gun owners are being penalized in a failed effort to control the violence problem in the urban cesspools of America....those very same concentration camps of poverty and violence that have been controlled by the kleptocrats for generations. They take zero accountability for this complete and utter failure and continue to blame the tools used by the criminals bred in their failed political petri dish. The whole "national security" issue is simply a bunch of hand waving to take the attention away from the stark reality of their failure in their own back yard.
And now you expect me to trust that that same incompetent and power hungry lot to not spread this disease to my little corner of the country? No thank you. I'll be hanging on to my firearm and my Constitutionally guaranteed rights, thank you.
I see a lot of comparisons here to the battle Phil had with PGP some time ago.
In this case, it doesn't really matter if it's won or lost for Distributed Defense. The larger issue is watching our Government waste potentially millions of taxpayer dollars in a futile attempt to put the proverbial genie back into the bottle, and should be thoroughly investigated as Fraud, Waste, and Abuse.
It's quite blatantly a futile effort. Whether it's tomorrow or 20 years from now, rest assured the documents they are attempting to secure will be available online, and likely with minimal effort. This is made even worse with the current Streisand Effect of shining a spotlight on the data you're attempting to hide from the masses.
Cite national security, terrorism, or any other BS excuse; bottom line is you can't put the genie back in the bottle, and it's costing taxpayers.
Don't be stupid. If it had nothing to do with the militia, why include them in the wording? They could have just written "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Let's look at the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" You don't see them preceding that with "In order to promote a free and open society" or any other such, because there's no need to. So why mention the militia in the 2nd amendment unless they meant it to mean something specific?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
its quite obvious he was telling 2nd amendment people to vote , or did obama incite violence by telling black audiences that if hillary isnt elected he will feel personally insulted????
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Strange, but Canada has the highest percentage of immigrants in the population of any G6 country (1 in 5 Canadians is an immigrant) and people aren't nearly as xenophobic. It also takes in more immigrants per capita every year than the US, and there's no public outcry to stop taking in refugees. On the contrary, half the refugees that came in from the Syrian war since December were sponsored by individuals and community groups, and requests for donations of winter clothes, etc., had to be stopped because there were just too many donations, the donation centers were overwhelmed with the response.
Perhaps Canadians aren't worried about "losing their culture" because Canada is a post-Christian secular country so there's nobody playing politics portraying immigrants as threats to the church. Most people simply don't give a sh*t about religion in their daily lives. Mellow out already.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Really? A "phony fact?" Even today the law says that the militia is limited to able-bodied men between 17 and 45 and women who are members of the national guard. Other ages are not legally part of the militia, and neither are women who are not in the national guard. Both organized and unorganized militia have the smae limitations.
Read it and weep.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Everyone would be better off if the root causes of gun violence were tackled. When I was 15, I bought a semi-auto rifle, and would go to Canadian Tire once in a while to pick up a box or two of bullets to plink tin cans. No permission from parents, no registration, no proof of ID, nothing. It was no big deal because the sale of hand guns was prohibited to almost everyone.
I think my parents found out about it when two of my sisters went snooping in the room, found where I had hidden it, snooped around and found the magazine (which was separate from the rifle) and the bullets (which were separate from both), and shot the neighbor's underwear hanging on the clothes line. Or maybe they didn't. We never talked about it because owning a rifle was no big deal, people weren't going around shooting each other.
So what are the root causes of gun violence? Most deaths by firearms are suicides, so better access to mental health care would cut the death rate by almost 2/3. Legalizing and controlling soft drugs would cut the money flow to organized crime. Reducing the economic disparity between different groups would go a long way to getting rid of the "us vs them" mentality and replace it with "we are all in this together" A big part of that last one is to remove municipal taxes as the base for funding schools. The schools should meet the same standards for everyone, regardless of where they live, not have some be high-tech wonders and others with moldy ceilings and text books that are held together with duct tape.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The DOD and State Department has a much more adversarial relationship; so, I disagree with that.
Tim S.
Of course the announcement would come from them.
Even if they remove the second amendment, what will change? Nothing. People will still have the acquired right to own firearms. It's simply not possible to find and confiscate the more than 300,000,000 firearms in the US. Any such attempt would be challenged in state courts first, and an injunction issued. Even if Hillary wins, she's (at most) a 1-term president. The legal wrangling won't be over before she's out of office.
Do people have a right to own firearms even without the 2nd amendment? Of course. Is it reasonable to have restrictions on the types of weapons, and to treat them like cars, with requirements for licensing the user and registration of the gun? Why not - people should be required to go through enough training so that they don't just pull their gun out in a parking lot and shoot the owner of the truck that was being hijacked instead of the robber (thinking that they could actually hit their target at 50' with a handgun with no training), or young kids finding guns in purses or on the floor of the car and shooting their moms.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Yes it is ridiculous, but it is also trivial to comply and legally make those plans available to 300 million Americans. Just label the files with the appropriate export control warnings and have down-loaders agree to the restrictions via the type of click through legal agreement that many software downloads have.
We went through this with encryption software and even web browsers that supported https... ITAR could have broken the Internet except people figured out how to comply and in their compliance show how silly the regulations actually were. The criminal act is in actually sending the files to a foreigner. So you just need to have someone state they are a US citizen and they agree not to export the files to a non-US citizen. Keep a log of downloads in case any downloader chooses to commit fraud and makes an unauthorized download.
Just comply with the bare requirements and then fight on the stronger grounds that the legal restrictions don't actually de facto prevent export, but that further restrictions on publication and distribution would indeed prevent the lawful distribution of the files to American citizens.
I'd vote for that. Shit, it'd overturn decades of anti-male legislation in an instant. Complete win on all fronts.
I think they want to take it all the way up to the Supreme Court, no half-measures.
So they want to lose big and take our Liberty with them? Thanks a lot?
Better to at least establish through practice the right to distribute these technical plans to Americans with the least possible amount of red tape (a EULA checkbox before download that says you are a US Citizen or Resident and will not export to citizens of other countries) and then fight for reasonable regulations on export. They should do this now, on their website, right now if they are at all serious about this issue.
The courts are not going to accept a prior restraint argument if there is not even the slightest care or check on whether the files are being requested by foreign sources.
Encryption was hard enough and technically web browsers and other software with encryption could still be export controlled, but actual weapon plans and schematics are going to be a bridge too far. And at least with encryption software there was a letter of the law attempt to comply export regulations. The court is going to have little appetite to go into the degree of lethality of the weapons in question to establish some higher threshold for exporting weapon plans abroad.
This case is overreach with all risk with the only hope being that the courts rule against this case more narrowly to allow them to fall back on the methods and procedures for export control that I suggest be applied.
Instead of establishing a file sharing community where amateur gunsmiths were actually sharing plans and making improvements to weapon designs and making some responsible efforts to make sure that people posing as foreign nationals at a time of ISIS weren't given weapon designs, this entire effort has been an immature attempt to put the cart before the horse that has been destructive of efforts to maintain 2nd amendment rights.
Somebody else please set up a marketplace for pistol, rifle and shotgun designs and schematics, put up the EULA to keep out foreign nationals and let's give them attention and praise for actually furthering the science, art and engineering of pistol, shotgun, and rifle design. And if that new website is sent some cease and desist letters threatening them, then let's support them, because then at least we can possibly win and protect the essence of the 2nd amendment which protects Americans right to keep and bear arms, not the rights of people in other countries.
I read through a lot of comments here but didn't see this thought yet, so I apologize if it's a repeat:
This ruling means that there is no such thing as free speech anymore. The first amendment is null and void. Why? Because if something becomes illegal to say on the basis of "national defense", then the government just needs to define more and more things [that they don't like] as a danger to national security/defense. That line is arbitrary, and the courts seem to always agree with the Executive and/or Legislative branch when they place something in the national security bucket.
If SCOTUS doesn't overturn this, then the day will come when speaking in a way that disagrees with the President will land you in jail because the Federal Government will have defined that as treachery and a clear danger to the security of the State. You see, what you said "is not merely tangentially related to national defense and national security; it lies squarely within that interest."
The whole freaking point of the 1st Amendment was to have the right to say things that the Government squarely disagrees with. If we've lost that, this country is legitimately doomed.
It's over 300m, last estimate I saw was 350m. I like it when people bring numbers into this argument because people often forget the scale of this issue, and they also forget to compare numbers from various sources to look at the big picture.
1980:
Population - 220m
Guns - 175m
Homicides 23,000
2014 (2015 FBI crime stats are _still_ not released..)
Population - 320m
Guns - 350m
Homicides 14,000
For all of the whining about guns not making people safer, that more guns equals more murders/crimes, etc, an actual look at some basic data very very strongly suggests otherwise.
True, but that doesn't mean it's no longer law.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
All the weapons you can legally purchase will not stop the US military or government, although many people appear to have fantasies to the contrary.
If you think Clinton is one of the two most unscrupulous Presidential candidates in US history, you need to study US history. Looking at actual elected US Presidents in my lifetime, I'd have to rate Johnson and Nixon as more unscrupulous than Clinton. Clinton is arguably the most unfairly maligned in the last century, with people blaming her for things that she's been cleared of, often by political enemies.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm not aware offhand of anti-male legislation. I am aware of unequal treatment throughout the justice system.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
As an extreme liberal who doesn't own guns, I agree with you. I don't see lawful gun owners causing problems.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How many laws are in the Constitution that are ignored on a daily basis? srsly?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
we hold these truths to be self-evident,that all men are created equal
Very easy to argue that if they had wanted to include women, they would have said so, especially since women were not considered equal in many ways, including voting, same as they had to add the 13th amendment because "all men" wasn't necessarily meaning "including blacks, Asians, or native Americans, or a whole bunch of other people.
It took the 19th Amendment just to guarantee the right for women to vote.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
If women had been included in the original, the 19th wouldn't have been necessary. And the 19th did not go beyond voting as far as constitutional guarantees are concerned. It would have been easy to take out the words "to vote" and have a clearer and broader constitutional right to equality.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Both the UK and Israel have passed laws allowing it. No politician has been jailed over this. Both France and Canada tried to pass laws revoking citizenship from dual nationals, and there's no legal reason at the UN level why it can't be done if the person isn't left stateless (ie. they have citizenship elsewhere).
Also, there's no such thing as laws that are perfectly natural. And what the law giveth in the big print, it frequently taketh away in the small print, so there's legal precedent that laws can be conditional, because the vast majority of the time, they have conditions attached. By extension, that would include the laws granting citizenship if a country so decides, because a country is sovereign with respect to its' laws.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
the world is awash in weapons that we produce.
This looks like a move protect profits more than anything else.
Except, it wasn't Rumsfeld who went before the U.N. to sell the invasion of Iraq, but Colin Powell. And after him and Rice, Hillary and Kerry sure sold the wars in Libya and Syria. And it's the State Department that sells hundreds of billions in weapons to friendly regimes, gives billions in military aid to Israel, and takes point in negotiations to maintain and lengthen the Pentagon's list of military bases while expanding NATO.
So I posit that disagreements between DOD and State are a) pure political theater b) like an old married couple who basically agree on everything, but argue about it anyway.
Very little that's in the Constitution and applicable today is ignored, although there have been very overreaching interpretations (like the interstate commerce clause).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes