Slashdot Mirror
20 States Take Aim At 3D Gun Company, Sue To Get Files Off the Internet (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Twenty states announced Monday that they plan to ask a federal judge in Seattle to immediately issue a temporary restraining order against Defense Distributed, a Texas-based group that has already begun making 3D-printer gun files available on its DEFCAD website after a recent legal settlement with the US State Department. "After almost 18 months I was skeptical that there was anything else that this administration would do that would truly shock me, but they have," Washington Attorney General Bill Ferguson told reporters assembled in Olympia and by phone. "Frankly, it is terrifying... We think that it is important to put a stop to this right away and make it as difficult as humanly possible to access this information." The new lawsuit, which Ferguson explained will be filed "within hours," comes just one day after Defense Distributed voluntarily agreed to block IP addresses from Pennsylvania after that state's attorney general filed a similar motion in federal court there. "Pennsylvania is still suing and we are still responding," Defense Distributed's founder, Cody Wilson, told Ars. Preemptively on Sunday, Defense Distributed sued the attorney general of New Jersey and the city attorney of Los Angeles to stop those lawsuits, largely on First Amendment grounds.
In this new 20-state initiative, the Washington attorney general argued that the State Department settlement violated the Administrative Procedure Act and also infringed upon states' Tenth Amendment right to regulate firearms within their own states. Ferguson pointed out, for example, people convicted of domestic abuse are flagged when they attempt to legally buy a gun. Allowing anyone to download and manufacture their own gun circumvents that process, he said. But Wilson told Ars it may be too late, as the files went up last Friday evening -- days before he said he would resume publishing them on August 1.
In this new 20-state initiative, the Washington attorney general argued that the State Department settlement violated the Administrative Procedure Act and also infringed upon states' Tenth Amendment right to regulate firearms within their own states. Ferguson pointed out, for example, people convicted of domestic abuse are flagged when they attempt to legally buy a gun. Allowing anyone to download and manufacture their own gun circumvents that process, he said. But Wilson told Ars it may be too late, as the files went up last Friday evening -- days before he said he would resume publishing them on August 1.
They'll lose in the Supreme Court. This isn't just a Second Amendment issue, it's a First Amendment issue foremost.
DD's lawyer is going to be famous after this case.
Every september libraries have what is called "Banned Books Week"
This is to highlight the problem with banning books and remind everyone that this is a terrible idea.
I think we've firmly established, over and over, that banning books does not work.
moox. for a new generation.
I am pro gun laws, and yet, my opinions cannot change reality. Just like "pirated" movies and music, there is no way to stop this from being distributed. I
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Certainly an upgrade from my current 2D gun. Very difficult to aim accurately.
They are going to make a lot of money countersuing those states for First and Second Amendment violations.
I guess the ongoing propaganda campaign to keep the masses ignorant and scared of firearms has worked, because it seems none of these people realize that "home-made" guns have been possible, and legal, for an extremely long time. Like any other machine, the quality will depend on the skills and tools available. The 3D printing stuff is interesting from a technical point of view, and it's impressive that the result functions at all, but still not very practical compared to traditional machining and stamping.
Criminals don't need to "print" an untraceable gun at home. They can walk down the street and buy an untraceable lost or stolen gun which will work without hours of tweaking and fixing. The idea that this project will meaningfully affect crime or public safety is ridiculous on its face. This is only in the news for clickbait and getting predictable outrage from the usual people who already didn't like guns.
As technology marches forward it will become easier and easier to manufacture weapons and a society which uses bans to solve the problem will have to crack down harder and harder upon freedom and liberty to stop people from circumventing those bans. Eventually you'll have to literally be locked down and monitored 24/7. You then have a choice, either you continue to treat people like children hoping in government and authority to protect them from big bad guns forever or accept the risks and inevitable pains and losses and teach people to learn to live with and use these tools like adults.
I'm not pro-gun or even a gun owner, but I think this lawsuit is idiotic. Diagrams of how to make a workable gun are available in any public library with an encyclopedia or a set of "how it works" books. Any halfway competent machinist with access to some metal stock and pipe could use them to produce a functional, if inelegant (i.e. unrifled) gun.
Printed guns are here. They are freely available. Anyone can make a gun.. They could before also with a little know-how... or just steal one. Fighting this is going to be like fighting movie downloading... It's happening at some level, but most people won't be affected by it. Just deal with it, this is no big deal.
"After almost 18 months I was skeptical that there was anything else that this administration would do that would truly shock me"
This is a case brought by 20 state governments; which administration is being referred to?
... money grubbers like gun manufacturers and their PAC, the NRA?
DIY should be an issue like the fucking "right to repair," mess.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I think that Washington's attorney general is confusing the right to publish with being responsible for what you publish. It is extremely hard to restrain speech in the U.S. prior to publication.
The Pentagon Papers were relevant to national security and there could not be prior restraint on publishing those. https://legal-dictionary.thefr...
Some state attorney generals willies about someone 3D printing a gun isn't even close to a national security issue. Stopping the information from being posted until a final adjudication should be nigh-on impossible.
Guns don't kill people, bullets do. Guns just make them go really fast...
And people are the ones who decide what direction the bullet goes and when it goes there... People use bullets, fired from guns to kill people..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Frankly, it is terrifying... We think that it is important to put a stop to this right away and make it as difficult as humanly possible to access this information
Yeah, I hear ya. But the thing about information is that it's REALLY hard to stop it from spreading. And this isn't super top-notch secret information that only a handful of people have. Anyone with a bit of time and some free software can make their own, and then go one to share it through any avenue available in this modern ultra-connected digital world.
You're simply not going to be able to police this. It's outside the scope of what you can control.
Any attempts to illegalize it will either be laughably unenforceable or boil down to cops raiding places for what amounts to thought-crime (which will run afoul of bigger laws, namely the 1st and 4th amendments to the constitution). So we, collectively, need to get ready for a world where nearly anyone with a bit of cash to spare (like $50), will have access to firearms. Really shitty firearms at the moment, but that's probably going to get better.
Nope, they are NOT the same. I know how to make explosives that would be illegal, but knowing is not doing or even having intent to do. You don't get tickets for speeding, just because you can go faster in your car than is allowed... Usually....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Because "Internet", information wants to be free. Sure, you can cover everything on the surface, but the more "secret" the information is, the more popular it will become, and the more people will attempt to copy and distribute, and print it.
Next thing will probably be outlawing 3D printers.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
It'd be awesome to try to tackle the problem of people wanting to kill each other in cold blood in the United States. You know, maybe try to foster a culture that values human life.
Oh wait, that goes against killing people in *other* countries though. Nevermind, that'll never work.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
It's prior restraint, something that the courts deeply frown upon.
A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace
by John Perry Barlow
Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.
We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.
Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.
You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.
You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract. This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.
Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.
We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.
We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.
Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.
Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge. Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.
In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.
You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.
In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in b
How many rights can we violate in a single idea?
The idiocy of the people complaining about this aside
*Breathes in*
AHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
GOOD LUCK LMAO
>"the Washington attorney general argued that the State Department settlement violated the Administrative Procedure Act and also infringed upon states' Tenth Amendment right to regulate firearms within their own states."
That is a pretty weak cry. In the Bills of Rights, the 10th says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (and we know how much THAT is followed already). As an aside, would these same people argue that the Department of Education should be eliminated because it [actually does] violate the 10th? Education is certainly NOT listed in the Constitution as a Federal power, in any way.
In any case the 10th doesn't overturn the 2nd. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" That is a specifically listed Constitutional right of the PEOPLE, not the Fed, not the States.
And the 10th also doesn't overturn the 1st. It says "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech" which applies to the States too, who all wrote it into their State Constitutions. Yes, even in Washington State: http://leg.wa.gov/lawsandagenc... Article 5 is freedom of speech " Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being
responsible for the abuse of that right." Article 24 is right to bear arms " The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired"
In any case, knowing HOW to build something doesn't make it legal to do something. It even says that RIGHT IN THE WASHINGTON STATE CONSTITUTION. You can post information about poison to the Internet, but that doesn't mean you can legally make it, or legally administer it to someone. You can post information about a kewl motor vehicle, but that doesn't mean you can legally drive it on public roads.
Information is just that.... information.... this isn't a case of threats, slander, libel, state secrets of national security, or inciting a riot, or similar, so why is information about making PARTS of a firearm suddenly off-limits? It's what you might DO with that information that could be made criminal, not the mere existence or sharing of that information. And if it were illegal to just exist or be posted, what information or ideas are next to be made illegal? Shall we ban all videos about how most house locks can be "bumped"? Ban marshal arts books? Ban wiring diagrams about radios that could be used to broadcast on restricted airwaves? Ban articles on Socialism or any other hot topic?
we do ban some speech. There's the obvious "Shout Fire in a theater" and "Won't someone rid me of this meddlesome priest" examples, but then there's also certain types of pornography. And try ask Julian Assange or Ed Snowden about freedom of speech. E.g. you can't spread state secrets just because it's free speech.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Architects seem to think diagrams have intellectual value...
These files have been floating around the net in various archives since they had been initially released. Last time I went looking I found them in an archive containing far worse than the files I was looking for.
Trying to say they are unavailable online only makes the download links multiply.
Anybody who wants these files already has them. All this does is make said files harder to collaborate on and share throughout the firearm and 3d printing community.
It's as if half the population forgot that some people like to make things that don't run on a computer, including guns, and banning things creates powerful black markets.
You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
Private citizens can manufacture or repair any firearms that do not violate restrictions on features, like no fully automatics.
Yes, the government has already covered manufacturing. As long as one is able to legally own a firearm, one is able to build one for PERSONAL use. The firearm they build cannot be sold or given to anyone. If someone builds a firearm to sell, then they fall into the manufacturing category and must be licensed as a manufacturer.
But why ask permission to build a weapon? Are US citizens not free people? Why would we have to ask permission to protect ourselves? We don't live in medieval Europe, we live in the USA.
"In this new 20-state initiative, the Washington attorney general argued that the State Department settlement violated the Administrative Procedure Act and also infringed upon states’ Tenth Amendment right to regulate firearms within their own states. Ferguson pointed out, for example, people convicted of domestic abuse are flagged when they attempt to legally buy a gun. Allowing anyone to download and manufacture their own gun circumvents that process, he said."
Oh dear. Imagine the problems dealing with 'people convicted of domestic abuse' or merely accused of this, if they already have a gun and hide it from the authorities. No, dear, you cannot be sure of preventing that, and you'll also take their cars, knives, and hand tools. Or not, and be shocked.
This is not a Tenth Amendment issue. That reserves to the States or the People powers not otherwise delegated. And the Second Amendment recognized the People as having the right to own guns. This suit should be spanked and sent off without dessert.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Information wants to be free! Unless it's about guns or something.
Just put the plans for it into an etherium or bitcoin contract and send yourself ten cents.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
is it? It's a manufacturing diagram. That's not expressing much of anything. Also, I'm not sure where the law is on manufacturing arms vs the right to keep and bare arms. Those are different things. I'm not sure the constitution address manufacturing. I suppose you could read that into it, but the right wing of SCOTUS tend to be literalists.
I suggest that you see the story of Phil Zimmermann than. You could make the same kind of argument about encryption basically, and the hint is that thanks to him and colleagues, we can freely use strong encryption.
Additionally I'd suggest doing research on the laws regarding manufacturing your own personal firearms before you start loudly speculating and/or proclaiming. You'll be less likely to be found wrong in public. :-)
Defense distributed could lose every single court case and they still won't stop 3d printed guns.
The gun control movement has turned into the drug war. You're trying to ban marijuana and backyard booze again.
All gun control regimes rely on controlling industrial production choke points. When those choke points don't exist those regimes are impotent.
The whole gun debate is as over at this point as the drug control debate. I suspect the advocates will have to die of old age just as with the drug control advocates. But once that happens... and unless they're immortal it will... there won't even be an argument anymore.
It is game over.
And to make it all the funnier... who said "get on the right side of history" as if they had a time machines or the ability to predict the future? Well, the gun control advocates did. And who is on the wrong side of history? They are.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
First off I'll point out that one lawsuit like this by a trio of anti-2A activists has already been tossed. So I'm somewhat curious if this will be thrown out as well. http://thehill.com/regulation/...
But more towards my; this may end up being a really stupid move by the state's that are pushing them. Every state with a gun control law that steps outside of what has been passed on the Federal level have used the 10th amendment as a justification for additional arms prohibition. Right now the case for restricting the distribution of these files is quite weak as is. Specially given the text of this ruling, which specially laid out some of the rules of what could and could not be banned. I'm rather paraphrasing heavily, but unless it's something that's already specially banned than these files are not explicitly illegal. I.E. a fully automatic M16 would be illegal, but just the basic semi auto only AR-15 is not. But in resting their entire argument on the 10th amendment you've now set up a situation where a lose by the plaintiff could result in a legal precedent that could be used by persons seeking to challenge ANY state level gun restriction.
Ultimately I think this case will probably be tossed without comment. But if these states seek to push this all the way up to SCOTUS you could see a complete collapse of any state level gun control laws.
You mean Bob Ferguson, ain't no Bill Ferguson listed anywhere as an Attorney General for Washington.
Nice job on editing, editors. Not.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Perhaps they should ban the plans to make WMD's first, like bombs. Oh wait....
You have always been legally able to make guns for your own use. The 1968 Act merely clarified this, it did not legalize it.
There are only a couple of restrictions:
1) You cannot make fully-automatic firearms.
2) You are not allowed to transfer or sell them.
That's it. Have fun.
Also, engineering diagrams, just like books or paintings or computer programs, are forms of expression covered by the First Amendment as well as copyright law.
You don't even need any "metal shop" tools to make a gun. That just helps to make a better one. My nephew and I assembled one from metal plumbing parts a few days ago. It took about half an hour, with nothing but hand tools.
Guns have been around since the 1300s, around the same time the hourglass was invented. Which shows they can be built with tools and equipment less advanced than what Columbus had on board the Santa Maria.
Yep this will bring about a new golden age of assassination, right before it brings us 3D printer control instead of gun control.
For an assassin's gun, 3D printing is ideal and greatly lowers the barrier of entry vs. traditional or CNC machining (which requires much more expensive equipment and much more skill). The Liberator with a plastic casing and stone bullet could slip through a metal detector.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I have no use for the files but if someone says they want to remove them from the internet I'm downloading them. FYI, the link is currently DDoS. Presumably, everyone else is getting them too.
This is going to sound a bit critical so let me preface it by stating that Cody Wilson is an interesting guy and I endorse Defense Distributed.
That said, Defense Distributed is really a political rhetorical tactic; Nobody is actually firing rounds and their oppressors from 3D printed guns. Fundamentally, freely publishing gun blueprints is a clever strategy to force Democrats into a corner, compelling them to choose between either of two undesirable options: allowing gun rights or opposing free speech rights. If Democrats suppress publication of gun blueprints, then they betray their own free-speech principles. If Democrats allow publication of gun blueprints, then they forego their anti-gun agenda.
As soon as Defense Distributed freely published gun blueprints, anti-gun Democrats confronted a no-win scenario. Because they necessarily loose, their best option is to minimize casualties. Wow, are they screwing that up:
"Frankly, it is terrifying... We think that it is important to put a stop to this right away and make it as difficult as humanly possible to access this information." Washington Attorney General Bill Ferguson told reporters...
Any government official publicly demanding that information be suppressed and censored instantly loses in the court of public opinion. That statement achieves nothing but to help Republicans heading into the November elections. "Democrats are working to suppress the right to free speech" is now a 100% truthful statement. It will get even worse after they lose in court, which will be viewed by the public as an authoritative rebuke of their attempts to suppress the right to free speech.
As I favor an adversarial and competitive political process, it would be nice to see the Democrats get their game on. As a first step, stop playing politics like it is tiddlywinks when the other side treats it as chess.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
You need to learn about 14th amendment incorporation doctrine.
TL;DR: The 2nd amendment is fully incorporated; that, in few words, means that it applies to the states.
ref: McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Unless the prohibition is part of the sentencing - the punishment assigned as a consequence of the crime - a law specifying such a restriction after the fact is a clear and unequivocal ex post facto violation of the constitution, and is invalid on its face. Here's the relevant portion of the ex post facto definition applying to criminal law:
Which is not to say there aren't invalid laws. There are. Many. There's also a sophist workaround in that states can make civil laws to do pretty much anything they want to anyone, anytime, because the government decided that ex post facto was only applicable to criminal law. But when it comes to punishment for commission of a felony... that's criminal law.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Let the information be free, make 3D-printed guns illegal. The 2nd amendment doesn't give the right to own any weapon.
In addition, even with the improvement in CNC machines 3D-printed guns are not up to the safety standards of mass-manufactured weapons and may be deemed to dangerous to use for their owner/maker. They wouldn't be the first items banned out of safety concerns.
I read many comments lamenting this and that ideologically, but as it comes to the "stuff that matters" , how this will go.
Ultimate question is: will we really see many plastic guns in crime?
There has been no shortage of guns accessible to organized crime in the past, so this is no issue in the street gang activities.
The only issue is terrorism in places that were so far protected by TSA: planes.
TSA is already checking the baggage for suspicious forms and shapes. Not sure this will really make an impact.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Or for that matter encryption that was classified as a âoemunition?â I think I still have the T-Shirt of Perl code in the shape of a porpoise, from 20 years ago. It was ostensibly subject to US export controls. I used to wear it whenever I traveled internationally.
Mojang (makers of Minecraft) have already gone full SJW retard
"Riding" digital pixels such as pig, horse, dolphin, in a video game is animal cruelty???
*facepalm*
You keep using these words "animal cruelty", it doesn't mean what you think it means.
--
Only children censor.
Adults discuss and even laugh about "taboo" subjects.
Just in case....
We think that it is important to put a stop to this right away and make it as difficult as humanly possible to access this information.
You who would suppress their free speech rights to create a false illusion of temporary security? That's a really SCARY statement.
I suspect it might be important for our future as a free society for it to be as EASY as humanly possible to access this information regardless of those in favor of centralization of power attempting to censor it.
Once it's out in the wild you can't contain it.
If you draw attention to it, by suing, then you create a Streisand Effect which makes more people pay attention to it and exasperates problem #1 above.
They should have ignored it.
Also, I'm not sure where the law is on manufacturing arms vs the right to keep and bare arms.
I'm fairly sure you can roll up your sleeves on your prosthetic arms without any repercussions.
Ezekiel 23:20
> we can freely use strong encryption.
I'm afraid that we cannot. It's still restricted for export, and attempts to provide it in hardware or software, without escrow keys or backdoors available to government request without due process, will lead to no export permits for this and other goods from your company. I'm afraid that these policies are at the core of Cisco's security practices, which have been repeatedly exposed as containing back doors for government monitoring. The practice is described in Tom's Hardware, at https://www.tomshardware.com/n...
Did you really just say building diagrams don't express anything? They literally express how to build shit. That is foolish on its face to say. Have you ever been to an abstract art exhibit? Trust me, if you think building diagrams don't express anything don't go. You'll lose your friggin mind trying to understand how that *is* protected speech but this isn't. Of course that is because it clearly and unquestionably is protected.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
This has been tested in court, with the Anarchist's Cookbook and when Analog magazine published rough designs for an atomic bomb in the 1970's. I remember both when they were first printed, and the furor surrounding them.
"I'm not sure where the law is on manufacturing arms vs the right to keep and bare arms."
"Bear." The Constitution (law) is clear - in this regard, the federal government really only has control over interstate commerce. Manufacturing a firearm for personal use is not a legitimate subject of federal regulation. And, not only does the 2nd A. reflect a natural right of self defense (the Bill of Rights doesn't give people rights, it warns government not to try to infringe them), but it's been "incorporated" on the States, so they're restricted from infringing those rights, too.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
You are allowed to sell or transfer them under federal law, you just are allowed to manufacture for sale. Where exactly the line is, nobody knows, maybe IRS hobby vs. business rules are apt, and the length of time you own the gun before sale, and weather or not you operate it prior to transfer.
And there are a few other categories of firearms that are restricted like cut-off rifles and shotguns, that are illegal or require a special permit.
Heck. As far as I know, the 7mm deer rifle in my closet upstairs has never killed anyone.
And the Luger that is also up there has not killed anyone since WWII. My grandpa got it off a dead Nazi. So the last person it killed was likely whoever said Nazi encountered before meeting Grandpa. :D
This space unintentionally left blank.
These files were always legal for domestic publication. DD originally took them down because they could not guarantee that downloaders weren't foreign nationals which (supposedly) violated ITAR. State department knew they would lose in court and admitted it.
These 20 states want a new TRO for domestic download, any talk of ITAR is irrelevant. Individuals like Philip Luty, and publishers like Paladin Press have long published exact plans for home production of firearms.
on the last weekend of September. Every year, dozens of people ask me about printing guns. This year I will be putting a sign on the printer that says:
Attention Firearms Enthusiasts:
Before you ask...
1) Yes, this machine could print a dangerously poor quality gun that would probably injure you if you pulled its trigger.
2) No, I have never printed a gun.
3) No, I won't print a gun for you. Don't bother asking.
4) Please don't ask me about printed guns. I have no interest in the subject.
Those are still legal, at least at the Federal level, you just need to pay your $200 for a tax stamp, wait amount 9 months for it to get processed and returned to you, then you can manufacturer (or receive your already paid for) NFA item (short barreled rifle, short barreled shotgun, suppressor, etc).
The exception to this is fully automatic weapons, those you can't manufacturer unless you've a class 3 NFA... which you aren't going to get as an individual.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
As far as I know you can't manufacture the parts needed to turn a semi auto into full auto even though it's trivial to do so.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
and the only question becomes do we want to regulate encryption like we do firearms. Of course it's not a 1 to 1 comparison. I can't kill someone with ones and zeros. But the point stands. At some point we have to decide what we want to and do not want to regulate and how much.
Also, we absolutely regulate what you can personally manufacture. You can't make a full auto rifle or the parts to convert a semi-auto.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
because it's a completely false sense of security. Fascists couldn't care less about your semi or even full auto rifles. By the time you're at the point where you're considering violence as a solution to Fascism it's much too late. They'll have seized control of the army and the food supply and the army will do what they're told like they always have so long as they've got pay and food. And you will not win against an organized army, let alone a modern one with the backing of the state.
And don't point out the Taliban. We're letting them have that 40%. We got the important parts (the oil pipeline we wanted).
If you want to prevent fascism you need to strip them of their favorite tool for seizing power: poverty. Seriously, look at every single fascist dictatorship and they all started with desperate poverty and an aristocracy that was abusing the working class.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Some restrictions may remain, especially with regards to enemy states. But on the whole, my statement is still accurate. The encryption algos were classified as weapons, and were much more heavily restricted.
Was that the gut-wrenching sound of a paradigm shifting without a clutch?
Pining for the days when The Glorious MEEPT!!! graced SlapDash with his wisdom.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
When I was a kid, I knew a kid who found some 22LR. He and his neighbor put them in cracks in the pavement and hit them with hammers. Darwin missed that day.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That's a good point. Modern cartridges, aka ammunition, allow the gun itself to be greatly simplified. There is no need for the matchlock mechanism used on the guns Columbus had, not the wheellock used by personal firearms aboard the Mayflower.
The wheellock used a mechanism similar to the sparking wheel found on a disposable lighter. With modern cartridges, a simple nail will do the trick of igniting the cartridge by striking the primer pre-installed at the rear of the cartridge ("bullet").
One simple and straightforward design for a gun can be seen in the .22 caliber nail guns uses to fire nails into concrete. Costing about $20 retail, it consists of an outer tube or pipe, an inside tube that slides into the outer, a nail, and a spring. The cartridge is placed in the end of the smaller tube. The smaller tube is then slid into the larger. This forms the chamber. The spring is placed on the nail and inserted into the end of the larger tube at the rear of the cartridge. Striking the nail fires the gun. If you don't want to have to carry something to tap the nail with, a trigger mechanism takes an additional 20 minutes to build.
Do not try this as home. If something goes wrong in your build, you'll be holding a small pipe bomb. Small, but enough to do some damage. You could also accidentally shoot yourself messing around like this. Don't do it. Try the Coke and Mentos thing instead, or make some obglek.
How many school shootings have been committed with a copy of Catcher in the Rye?
How many disgruntled ex's have gunned down their old love interests with To Kill A Mockingbird?
How many poor people minding their own business have been aired out by Catch 22 happy cops?
I'm afraid that your analysis is unjustifiably optimistic. The Wikipedia article is surprisingly good, and cites the actual regulations at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... When the regulations were found unconstitution, they were transferred, wholesale to the Department of Commerce. Free use of cryptography is trapped in the awkward struggle between business and free speech lobbyists who want to use and export robust cryptography, and the law enforcement and intelligence agencies that want only encryption that they can intercept easily.
"The new lawsuit, which Ferguson explained will be filed 'within hours,' comes just one day after Defense Distributed voluntarily agreed to block IP addresses from Pennsylvania after that state's attorney general filed a similar motion in federal court there.
Thank Almighty God and Baby Jesus nobody in Pennsylvania has ever heard that the letters "V", "P" and "N", when taken together, constitute an acronym which has some bearing on this situation.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
The issue comes up pretty regularly here. And you're pretty solely focused on the export aspect. I'm not limiting my statement to that of export.
I'm sure a stone or synthetic diamond firing pin would work at least once. And why would metal have to be used in the primer? A plastic or composite primer capsule should work just fine.
The sniffer problem may be harder to solve, but I imagine a DIYer could develop a sealed bullet. And sniffer devices aren't widely used anyway.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Well, first, it has been legal for a LONG time to manufacture your own guns for your own use.
That is settled law....it is one of the reasons for the rise of the "80% lowers" industry, as they they sell you the lower receiver for an AR or a 1911...that is not quite ready for use. The serialized part, the lower here, is the only part that the ATF considers to be the weapon itself. If you construct this yourself, it is perfectly legal and you do not have to register it or serialize it, etc.....as long as you don't try to sell it, and keep it for personal use.
And as far as if this is speech?
Well, it is basically coding, design....that I guess is speech if you take it in the context of burning a flag is speech too, or political donations are speech.
With that in mind, I don't see the design or coding of anything as not being able to be considered speech....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Americans are bananas. Not got any hobbies, other than shooting up the whole damn place?
If the billionaire media barons can't succeed in blocking the distribution of stuff that they own and control, how successful do you think a bunch of state governments will be at keeping something off the internet that they don't own? I wouldn't want to guess how many websites are already mirroring the do-it-yourself handgun plans, and a lot of them will be outside the US and far from the control of these state legislators. Like many state legislators, they seem to think that they can make the moon shine brighter than the sun and make water flow uphill.
They've been trained to be, especially the military. How else do you get somebody to rush a machine gun nest. Once their lives and their families lives are threatened by food insecurity they'll cheerfully oppress you. People change when they can't eat.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I agree and don't forget that the money the NRA spends on lobbying for gun manufacturers does not come from membership fees.
That money comes from the manufacturers themselves and special interest groups that want the gun industry in their district to do well (jobs).
The NRA is a half-assed organization. I'm a member because I support the half that promotes gun safety, family sports, hunting, and competitions.
The other half fronts for the gun industry. I don't give a flying fuck about the goddam gun industry.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Pretty much the same thing as banning books that would teach you how to assemble a gun. Legally I think it's a bad precedent. Technically it's pissing in the wind, it's trivial to set up a foreign corporation and host it outside the US, and it's trivial to use a VPN or Tor to access the site if you want it.
Cowsoys in Cowsoyistan.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Soon it's going to be illegal to build your own firearm. Why? Because the day that there's a school shooting and a homemade weapon was used will be the end of this legal right.
pushing to normalize pedophilia
No, you're getting this all wrong. We need to cure pedophilia. There is actually a very simple cure for it. And it only costs about 5 cents.
I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
The Analog incident occurred during WWII. By 1970, the principles for atomic bomb construction were understood by anyone who bothered to think about it.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
So who's up for setting up a site that shows an AR-15, AK-47, etc and when they print it it's actually a Hello Kitty figure?
Sideshow Bob tries to get his name in the media as often as possible by suing the Trump administration dozens of times to appeal to his potential backers as he gets ready to run for governor. Now that he’s discovered the 10th Amendment he should get all of his AG pals to start filing lawsuits daily for everything that the Federal government does that isn’t explicitly allowed in the Constitution.
"Transfer" typically means transfer ownership. There is no way anyone can stop you from transferring by hand to someone, because they can always make a few file marks and claim they made it themselves.
And you can loan it to someone (in most states). That isn't transferring ownership.
But you can't sell it.
You run risks when you are making so many that the BATFE decides you are now in the business of building them.
Nonsense. There is nothing in the law (I have seen it) about how many you can make. The definition of being "in the business" is if you have sold any. You can make 1,000 of them for your own use, if you're that stupid. You just can't SELL them. There are no ATF regulations against stockpiling them. It's only about transfer.
I'd bet money that selling a few of what you made (outside of a buyback) would probably make you look more like a manufacturer as well.
YOU CAN'T SELL THEM. At all. That is explicitly illegal. It wouldn't make you look like an illegal dealer, it would in fact make you an illegal dealer.
More clarification:
If you have what looks like a damn factory, but there aren't any guns around, you're probably busted.
But if you have what looks like a factory, and they product is all in the basement, the law is okay with you.
they / the