Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

With 3D Printer Gun Files, National Security Interest Trumps Free Speech, Court Rules (arstechnica.com)

Posted by msmash on from the verdict-for-all dept.

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.'

12 of 438 comments (clear)

  1. Asinine. by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Asinine. by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      Exactly. One can't help think there is a hidden agenda here of allowing the government better control of DOMESTIC gun possession. I certainly hope the Supreme Court reviews this case. This represents a huge blow for First Amendment rights, and seems at odds with previous rulings pertaining to source code of encryption software being ruled free speech despite ITAR regulations controlling the export of cryptography.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    2. Re:Asinine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Their gun laws post-Hobart shootings have greatly reduced the number of suicides.

      I'm not sure what's more odd or ridiculous about your post:

      That you think Australia's gun control laws were a significant factor in lowering its suicide rate, or that you think most people care about suicide in the first place.

    3. Re:Asinine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I do think America should register guns, permits should be issued and databases should be searchable and indexable. Currently the only thing the absence of gun registration in the US does is make it more difficult to track crime.

      Yes, let's just ignore that Australia used their registration database to confiscate their firearms.

      Fuck your mother.

    4. Re:Asinine. by felrom · · Score: 4, Informative

      You may not, but the problem is that too many of the politicians you vote for do. HRC is on record many times this campaign saying she wants to see the "Australian model" implemented in the US. That means forced confiscation of all personally owned firearms under the guise of "buybacks." The buybacks are mandatory, and you go to prison is you don't comply.

      Here's a list of politicians talking about confiscating guns, just from a short period in 2013:

      Hawaii legislature proposes gun confiscation
      http://www.hawaiireporter.com/...

      New York Assemblyman asks colleague not to mention that original proposed SAFE Act included confiscation
      http://www.breitbart.com/Breit...

      Missouri Democrats introduce legislation to confiscate guns
      http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-...

      VA has veterans who cannot manage their own financial affairs declared prohibited persons unable to own firearms
      http://www.humanevents.com/201...

      NJ State Senator "We needed a bill that was going to confiscate confiscate confiscate."
      http://www.politickernj.com/ba...

      Oregon Legislator calls fears of gun confiscation a "paranoid delusion" and then states he is in favor of gun confiscation
      http://www.examiner.com/articl...

      Governor Cuomo says, "confiscation could be an option."
      http://www.nationalreview.com/...

      Feinstein suggests "compulsory buyback."
      http://washingtonexaminer.com/...

      CA assembly proposes confiscating 166,000 legally registered guns.
      http://www.mercurynews.com/bre...

      And the classic from 1995:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Do you notice any common political party among the people calling for confiscation?

    5. Re:Asinine. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

      You mean other than in California where the State can confiscate your firearms on an anonymous "tip" that you are a danger. And it can do it without warning, and does not have to return the firearms until you can prove that you are not a danger.

      Oh and they have criminalized possession of magazines that were previously legal, meaning if you did not turn them in to the police on-time, then you run the risk of losing all your firearms - permanently (convicted of a gun violation = automatic, lifetime loss of firearm privileges in CA).

      But other than that, yeah - no one's coming for your guns...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    6. Re:Asinine. by blindseer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I clicked on a bunch of your links (the youtube has suffered a takedown, btw) and almost all of those are re: assault weapons and high capacity weapons/magazines. I'm not surprised people get more upset about those when they really are overkill for any hunter worth their salt (and yes, I've hunted with bows and arrows as well as rifles... never saw the need for semi-automatics).

      If you think the Second Amendment is about hunting ducks and deer then you've missed the whole point.

      I tend to favor letting people own them, but I also favor registering them and having robust training and licensing. The NRA seems to want unlimited rights with no regulations, precautions or monitoring, apparently.

      We just saw a court rule that a computer file can be banned because it describes how to build a single shot pistol. I'd think that might wake you up that perhaps the NRA isn't just paranoid here. They didn't rule that the files could only be available domestically, or just to people licensed and trained in firearm use, or both. They ruled the files themselves were banned from distribution.

      This is quite simply a weapons ban, and the weapon is a computer file. Words are weapons here, according to them. They seem to fear foreign nationals might be able to build these single shot weapons to... do what exactly? Invade the USA? They are already smuggling in machine guns so that makes no sense. Especially when the machine guns that they smuggle into the USA were sold to them by the US government.

      The governemnt don't want to disarm these foreign nationals, they are already arming them. They don't want me and you armed is all. If it wasn't about disarming Americans then they'd have said the files need to be sent to people with a US address, proper training, and registration. They didn't say that, they said the files cannot be shared.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:Asinine. by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Banning books...?

      The US government has grown ever more authoritarian and has violated ever more Constitutional limits and civil rights over the last century and has grown ever bolder. Many here have even cheered on government violations of civil rights and limits to government power when it fits their political/ideological agendas. I've warned against this sort of thing for years and was flamed and ignored because for far too many people including many here, the ends justify the means.

      With all the support they've received from the public for violating other civil rights and limits to their power for political/ideological goals, are you really shocked or surprised they would violate the 1st Amendment?

      If you allow them the power to "reinterpret" one thing, they can and will use the same powers, methods, and tactics to reinterpret anything else they want.

      As far as Defense Distributed's 3D printer files, just strip the files of anything tying them to anyone and upload them to torrent sites across the internet. Let them waste time & resources on playing 'whack-a-mole'.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  2. Publish a f-ing book already. by DaHat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  3. "Activist" judges? by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:"Activist" judges? by jcr · · Score: 5, Informative

      TWO constitutional rights. The first and second amendments are both violated by this ruling.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  4. The what Department? by LMariachi · · Score: 4, Informative

    the State Department has asserted a very strong public interest in national defense and national security

    Here I was thinking that national defense was the purview of a different department... The name escapes me at the moment.