Slashdot Mirror


Federal Judge Rules Against Trump Administration on 3-D Gun Blueprint Case (latimes.com)

A federal judge on Monday issued a preliminary injunction continuing a prohibition on the Trump administration proposal to make available blueprints for so-called ghost guns, untraceable weapons that can be manufactured on a 3-D printer, California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said. From a report: California was one of 20 states led by Washington that won the decision from U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik in Seattle. The injunction extends a ruling last month that barred the Trump administration from taking steps that would allow the firm Defense Distributed to disseminate 3-D gun blueprints. "When the Trump Administration inexplicably gave the green light to distribute on the internet blueprints of 3D-printed, untraceable ghost guns, it needlessly endangered our children, our loved ones and our men and women in law enforcement," Becerra said in a statement. "The Trump Administration's actions were dangerous and incompetent."

418 comments

  1. Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is so complicated about "[s]hall not be infringed?"

    1. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Informative

      What is so complicated about "[s]hall not be infringed?"

      The Second Amendment talks about the right to keep and bear arms, not manufacture them ...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who is manufacturing them? This is like Metallica suing Napster for distributing mp3 files. The judge says you can't download these files. What if you printed the text of these files into a book and sold it? Would that book be deemed illegal?

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    3. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >those semantics
      It is obvious the Founders preferred liberty to safety. They knew how weapons were manufactured at the time of writing.

    4. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What is so complicated about "[s]hall not be infringed?"

      The Second Amendment talks about the right to keep and bear arms, not manufacture them ...

      Who is manufacturing them? This is like Metallica suing Napster for distributing mp3 files. The judge says you can't download these files. What if you printed the text of these files into a book and sold it? Would that book be deemed illegal?

      Then it sounds like a First Amendment issue, not Second.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    5. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are impinging on the first amendment. They are not allowed to tell people how to make them, thats different from actually making them.

      But nonetheless, I find it interesting that the "states rights" outweigh the 1st and 2nd amendments according to this court, which I find illogical. It also seems odd for "libs" to be fighting for states rights... May you live in interesting times.. well these are pretty interesting.

    6. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

    7. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you printed the text of these files into a book and sold it? Would that book be deemed illegal?

      Copyright is explicitly and expressly allocated to the Federal government in the US Constitution, so, if Congress wants that, then yes, a court would be bound to it.

    8. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The judge says you can't download the files from defense distributed

      The files are readily available.

      As are other files that show you how to make usable guns from metal (AK action from a shovel).

      This one has to be tough for TDS people, he's right. Best to just move past it, as fast as possible.

      An all plastic gun is already illegal to have. They are supposed to set off metal detectors. IIRC 10 years federal, same as an unlicensed machine gun/guided missile.

      You can be up for 10 years for purposely bending a semi auto's firing pin, making it slamfire. The whole area of law is no joke. 10 years for a useless plastic gun would be embarrassing. Like a 'petty' crime bust.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by EvilSS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very true. However this particular case isn't a 2A case to being with since there is no law banning these plans domestically. The case revolves around an ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) issue, where the feds said that making them available on a US website made them available to international users, and thus "export". I'm really not seeing how the states have standing on something like this, which is part of a power explicitly granted to the federal government.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    10. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey Cluestick, I'm in a "Blue State" and we have lots of militias.

      Even your National Guard is a militia!

      But also the "survivalist" morons have a militia.

      The 2nd Amendment lists both the right of a State to allow militias, and also an individual right to bear arms. The militia part means that if your militia is legal under State law, and can pass a minimal military parade review, then the federal government can't claim that it is unlawful for them to bear arms as a group.

      But it isn't like the 1st Amendment, where Congress can make no law restricting the freedom of the press. Instead, Congress shall not abridge the right. That only means, after Congress passes some law, it has to leave a path so that people can still do the thing. (possess arms; march around in a group)

      Abridge literally means you left no bridge, so "shall not abridge" doesn't mean there are no rules to navigate, only that there is a path through those rules that leads to exercising the right.

    11. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is manufacturing them? This is like Metallica suing Napster for distributing mp3 files. The judge says you can't download these files. What if you printed the text of these files into a book and sold it? Would that book be deemed illegal?

      No it isn't like Napster and yes selling that book would be illegal. Remember that music piracy is a victimless crime where the artist actually benefits form the piracy in that he is flooded with lots and lots of goodwill from all the people downloading his music for free. When the technology becomes mature enough, a person 3D printing a Glock or an AR-15 will actually represent the potential sale of a physical object. Anybody who can afford an industrial quality 3D printer can also afford a Glock or an AR-15 and thus represents a lost sale. I'd actually expect any other Republican administrations to crack down on 3D printed guns really hard, not because they care about people getting killed, they could not care less about people dying (well poor, people, rich ones they care about), they'd crack down on 3D printed guns because 3D printed guns will in the future impact gun company profits.

    12. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by mysidia · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Second Amendment talks about the right to keep and bear arms, not manufacture them ...

      It is legal to manufacture guns. Instead of an affirmative right to manufacture guns existing: the federal government doesn't have within
      its enumerated powers a capability to ban the private manufacture of guns --- although they can regulate the manufacture related to interstate commerce;
      the federal government doesn't have the authority to restrict individuals manufacturing firearms for their own personal use,
      and they don't even attempt to (no law on the books prohibits this).

      This injunction isn't a violation of the 2nd amendment: It's a breach of the 1st amendment rights of Defense Distributed.

    13. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by bws111 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OK, 'genious', where did you get THAT incorrect piece of information? The militia of the United States is "all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

    14. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's already legal to manufacture your own firearms. There are restrictions around selling/transferring arms you manufactured.

    15. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bwahahaahaha have you looked at who your current president is? You already have a tyrannical government and no one is doing anything about it.

    16. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed - this has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment - and everything to do with the 1st.

      You see, it's already legal to manufacture these guns in most places within the US. If you have the file it's legal to print it.

      What they're literally saying is that it's illegal to transmit the INSTRUCTIONS. The information on how to do so.

      I'm sorry, but there's no way that will pass constitutional muster. If you want to try and outlaw the home manufacture of guns that's a separate issue that is not currently being debated, but barring the publication of instructional information, PARTICULARLY regarding a completely legal activity, is antithetical to the 1st ammendment.

      This will certainly be overturned.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    17. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you believe yourself to be clever?
      That you found a loophole to the 2nd amendment because it doesn't explicitly mention manufacturing?
      Prohibitive taxation, the banning of manufacture, or the prohibition from owning ammunition are all "clever" attempts to circumvent the constitution and wouldn't survive in court because they infringe on that right.
      It's not like you give a shit what the constitution says anyway, let's be real here.

    18. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Woldscum · · Score: 4, Interesting

      More Pro gun control Fake News.

      VERY IMPORTANT point. If you are legally able to buy/own a firearm (AK, AR, BB gun, Shotgun, Pistol, etc). You are 100% legally able to build yourself one or 100 of them. Just not for sale, must be for your own use. Making a gun for someone else would make you a manufacturer and need a Type 7 FFL. They would need to ban blueprints and STL files of gun receivers too. A CNC milling machine uses "flies from the web" also.

      https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q...
      ATF FAQs
      Does an individual need a license to make a firearm for personal use?
      No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use. However, a license is required to manufacture firearms for sale or distribution. The law prohibits a person from assembling a non–sporting semiautomatic rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as well as firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or x–ray machines. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF.

      [18 U.S.C. 922(o), (p) and (r); 26 U.S.C. 5822; 27 CFR 478.39, 479.62 and 479.105]

    19. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      What is so complicated about "[s]hall not be infringed?"

      Yeah! Why won't they allow me to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? /s

      Every amendment has limitations.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    20. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Glock and AR15 that you mention are well past their patent expiration dates. Plenty of companies other than the original manufacturers already make legal clones.

      Printing of newer designs would be covered under copyright, but just like they can't outlaw the sheet music from Beethoven to protect the latest Cardi B album, neither can they outlaw the distribution of public domain plans to protect non-public domain guns.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    21. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually we do, however the right to bear arms isn't granted to the militia. It's granted to the people, based on the fact that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and the people need arms to be able to form a militia when needed.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    22. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A tyrannical President wouldn't be supporting the citizens right to arm themselves!

    23. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, tell me how you plan to use your plastic gun to take down the tyrannical government that has tanks,fighter jets, and nuclear weapons.

      The 2nd amendment was important at one time, such as when we fought off the British, but it hasn't kept up with the times and is unable to compete with the well armed standing army we have now.

      Note: i do own guns.

    24. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is so complicated about "[s]hall not be infringed?"

      The Second Amendment talks about the right to keep and bear arms, not manufacture them ...

      It's ALREADY legal to manufacture your own firearms:

      No, a license is not required to make a firearm solely for personal use. However, a license is required to manufacture firearms for sale or distribution. ...

      It's the SELLING part that the government restricts.

      Now maybe you understand when a conservative rails about "activist judges".

      This one damn judge has set his own rectally-sourced opinion above both current law and the US Constitution.

    25. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it also doesn't protect the rights to have rocket launchers, grenades, land mines, missiles, bombs, bump stocks, large magazines, or even assault rifle. doesn't even protect your right to have pepper spray or a stun gun.

      simply put, it does not specify exactly what is protected and what is not.. the courts have always decided and that's politically influenced (by campaign "donations" and promised favors).. and that's where we're at now.. some things 'decided' (temporarily, at least, because courts change), others not.

      what if the 2nd amendment only applied to the types of personal firearms commonly available in north america at the time the document was written and ratified, and only for personal use quantities (i.e. a few individual weapons not massive stockpiles)?

    26. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What is so complicated about "[s]hall not be infringed?"

      Every amendment in the Bill of Rights comes with explicit or implicit limitations. It's why you can't go down to the liquor store and buy a machine gun. The limitations, apparently, are somewhat mutable, according to the needs of society. The line moves. It always has, since 1789.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    27. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The true tyrants in government are the ones who want to disarm the populace, that's why have the 2nd Amendment.

    28. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by wizkid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The judge says you can't download the files from defense distributed The files are readily available.

      Along with the spec's for a AR15. But those are legal because they're not in cad format. For someone who's worked a c&c lathe, that's not a big obstacle.

      An all plastic gun is already illegal to have. They are supposed to set off metal detectors. IIRC 10 years federal, same as an unlicensed machine gun/guided missile.

      And these guns do have a metal firing pin, so they are legal from this argument.

      It is not illegal to make a gun. It's illegal to make a gun and sell it.. But, what if you make the gun, use it for 20 years, give it to your son, and he sells it?

      --
      I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
    29. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Anybody who can afford an industrial quality 3D printer can also afford a Glock or an AR-15 and thus represents a lost sale". This argument is as broken as the "every downloaded mp3 represents a lost CD sale" argument from RIAA.

    30. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol as if the 'merkin people would ever revolt. that'd cut into their reality tv, substance abuse, greed, I got mine fuck you, not in my backyard, kill whitey, kill colored people, dey tuk er jerbs, etc. glad the 'merkin century is over, this is what you 'merkins voted for, reap it.

    31. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    32. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is manufacturing them? This is like Metallica suing Napster for distributing mp3 files. The judge says you can't download these files. What if you printed the text of these files into a book and sold it? Would that book be deemed illegal?

      More like Metallica suing MPEG for creating MP3's which allowed their songs to be duplicated. Going after Napster is more like going after gunshops, and yes I'm aware of the history behind Napster.

      You can manufacture something non-commercially. That is, not as a business but personal. Whether or not taxes are better, is another matter.

    33. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every amendment in the Bill of Rights comes with explicit or implicit limitations.

      I disagree. The Bill of Rights was clear. It has been muddied by Congressional and Judicial action.

    34. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to Iraq and Afghanistan and the amount of troops and money we had to spend and are spending to stop people with guns.

    35. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I tried to buy dinner last night with a bit of Goodwill.

      They weren't having any of that shit.

      Artists benefit from cash.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    36. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Its federal law. 'danger will robinson'. Gotta be a detectable amount of (likely ferrous) metal.

      Of all the ways to fuckup and end up in fed, playing with a dangerous, useless plastic gun would be about the stupidest.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    37. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's illegal to transfer possession of a homemade gun to anyone. If you die and leave it behind, someone would technically have to destroy it. It would be an incredibly difficult case to prosecute though, unless the person possessing it or you admitted previously that you made it and not them.
      Drawings and designs are analogous to software source code. The courts ruled 25 years ago that the government couldn't regulate the transmission or possession of source code since it's free speech. They can only regulate compiled software (which is more like the assembled firearms)

    38. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't because we can't that is because we are trying to do it "nicely". We could just glass the place and be done with it entirely.

    39. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Because Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. never happened.

      And keeping your grandpa's over under in the closet doesn't really count as "owning guns"

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    40. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has he done that is tyrannical?

    41. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by blindseer · · Score: 0

      It is not illegal to make a gun. It's illegal to make a gun and sell it.. But, what if you make the gun, use it for 20 years, give it to your son, and he sells it?

      My guess is that the insane anti-rights people would put the son that inherited the gun in jail for ten years, and also dig up the now deceased father and put the corpse in prison for 10 years to make some kind of point.

      Technology is moving too fast for this dinosaur of a government we've allowed to develop. A dinosaur as in big, slow, and unable to adapt to a changing climate. It's time to shave it down to the size of the box it came in, the box with the dimensions as defined in the US Constitution.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    42. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Yep. They have tried to ban the Anarchists's Cookbook forever and keep getting slapped down.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    43. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly because the government has placed limits on what weapons we can have. We could have much more sophisticated weapons than what we currently have if they weren't all outlawed. Common semi-auto rifles aren't so out of parody with what the government uses. You also make the assumption that all armed forces would side with the tyrannical government. That's a big assumption.

    44. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yelling fire is limited because if you do it and it's not true you can cause panic and death. It's not really expressing an opinion or a fact.
      The right to bear arms is already limited because it's illegal to use it to kill people without a valid reason.
      If someone yelled fire and killed some people, would you ask for mouths to be banned?

    45. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi idiot. You'd make a great American.

    46. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by DaHat · · Score: 1

      It's illegal to transfer possession of a homemade gun to anyone.

      No, it's not.

      The risk you run in giving./selling a homemade firearm to someone else is that you could be seen as 'in the business of manufacturing' without an FFL, then are running afoul of federal law.

      If you start off intending to make a bunch to sell/give away, you are going to have problems, if you sell a cheap zip gun to a private buy back, or give it to your friend (and you both can legally own firearms), you're ok.

      Granted... IANAL, there are those who have written on the same subject: https://www.criminaldefenselaw...

    47. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by oic0 · · Score: 1

      Its completely legal to manufacture guns... You can't sell them, but you can make them all you want.

    48. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain to the American citizens rounded up and put in concentration camps in 1942 how guns would have protected them from tyranny.

      Guns won't protect America from tyranny because gun owners on the whole seem to willingly support tyranny if it's phrased patriotically.

    49. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by DaHat · · Score: 2

      Ok, tell me how you plan to use your plastic gun to take down the tyrannical government that has tanks,fighter jets, and nuclear weapons.

      You've completely missed and should spend a few minutes on this excellent read: https://www.wired.com/story/de...

    50. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      "Yelling fire" isn't limited at all.

      "FALSELY yelling fire" is limited. Note the "falsely" - it's important.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    51. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So why aren't you standing at border checkpoints with your gun protecting people from unreasonable search and seizure? Why aren't you patrolling the streets to protect unarmed black youths from being harassed or shot by cops?

    52. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      It will be overturned and a waste of everyone's time and money.

      Is it just me or are there a record number of injunctions than before? It is getting a little bit ridiculous that a few un-elected judges can stop obvious legal actions with questionable standing for the sake of grandstanding and #resist. Maybe not but there have been quite a few injunctions that had no business or standing to be filed.

    53. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

      Son, when the courts rule that you cant print a well regulated militia on your 3D printer, then you can worry.

      These are guns. Now go play with your toy president.

    54. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by x0ra · · Score: 1

      The interpretation of the 2nd amendment has been discussed over and over, and settled by the Supreme Court in Heller. Your interpretation is wrong.

    55. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And right on queue is the cock sucking moron with his "Fire" argument.

    56. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make the assumption that the armed forces are going to side with you. That's a big assumption.

    57. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by guruevi · · Score: 0

      Guns are only supposed to set of metal detectors if you sell them. For home manufacturing nearly no legislation is present because the second amendment right. Same for tanks and RPGs, you can own them, you just can't buy/sell them on the open market.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    58. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by johanw · · Score: 0

      > Printing of newer designs would be covered under copyright, but just like they can't outlaw the sheet music from Beethoven to protect the latest Cardi B album, neither can they outlaw the distribution of public domain plans to protect non-public domain guns.

      Yet. You never know what Disney-style lawyers can come up with.

    59. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      It's illegal to make a gun and sell it.. But, what if you make the gun, use it for 20 years, give it to your son, and he sells it?

      It's illegal to make a gun for the purpose of selling it unless you're licensed. However, it's perfectly legal to make one for yourself and later sell it, though the burden of proof will be on you to show that you didn't make it specifically for resale. In your example the gun was clearly made for personal use, with twenty years of use between manufacture and sale, so the son shouldn't encounter any difficulties.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    60. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by guruevi · · Score: 1

      You can make semi auto and automatic weapons if you can manufacture or convert them yourself.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    61. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      If the line moves without changing the text what is the point of law? The law becomes moot when you can interpret any action without changing the text of the law because there is no substance to the law that would constrain the government in applying the law.

      The entire purpose of a democratic system is to allow the people an opportunity to change the law instead of hoping the government wants what they want. If the government can selectively choose which law to enforce and how to interpret the law then it will lead to abuse, corruption, and tyranny.

      We all have to come from a similar position in understanding the law and the law should be simple enough that the average person can understand it. Creating a byzantine labyrinth of meaning only understood by lawyers is not a recipe for a healthy government representing the people.

    62. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep - anything to make a fuss about Trump

    63. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can make the "legislating from the bench" argument as long as you're also unhappy about republican judges legislating from the bench and changing the traditional meaning of the right to bear arms from being a part of a militia opposing a federal power grab into a right to hold an arsenal for own pleasure... It happened between 2008 and 2010.

    64. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing about the supreme court legislating from the bench has been "settled", it revises its own precedents often enough.

      Especially if a decision in favour of a lobby goes against a long history of precedents in the opposite direction.

    65. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Many of the judges in lower courts are elected and getting appointed to a higher circuit or Supreme Court is also highly political. Unelected perhaps but certainly representing some political cause and by extension politicians and corporations.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    66. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one has to be tough for TDS people, he's right. Best to just move past it, as fast as possible.

      That's because they know they're going to be the first ones shot.

    67. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make the assumption that I made an assumption. That's a big assumption.

      Also, meant 'parity' not 'parody'.

    68. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by guruevi · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget that at the point of writing, automatic guns were already available as were cannons, grenades and other explosive artillery. The fact that the founding fathers didn't put a limit on the destructive power a citizen could own sure has something to say.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    69. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Abridge literally means you left no bridge

      That is not what "abridge" means. Even considering archaic versions. The origin of "abridge" according to Merriam-Webster is:

      Middle English abreggen, abriggen "to reduce, diminish, shorten," borrowed from Anglo-French abreger, going back to Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + breviare "to shorten, abridge," verbal derivative of brevis "short"

      As you can see, it has nothing at all to do with bridges or paths.

      The legal definition is "to diminish or reduce in scope". As in: the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be diminished or reduced in scope.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    70. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They'll use the Commerce Clause again.

      They'll say "since you manufactured it yourself, you therefore didn't buy it from someone else, and so thus you've influenced interstate commerce." They made that argument in 1942 with a guy growing wheat to feed his animals, and won.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

    71. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by guruevi · · Score: 1

      You can actually yell fire in a theater. First amendment and all that. You do have to bear the consequences of that act though. Same goes for second amendment, you can own guns, you do have to bear the consequences if something goes wrong.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    72. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Var1abl3 · · Score: 2

      I assume they will follow their oath to "uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION of the USA" They do not swear to protect a President or political party..... I wonder what books we should burn that have instructions to build something that a State does not like???

    73. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Begs the question* is a gun 'buy back' a sale?

      * Grammarian troll.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    74. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The entire purpose of a democratic system is to allow the people an opportunity to change the law instead of hoping the government wants what they want.

      At this point, you're no longer talking about anything in the Constitution, but then you should know that already.

    75. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Giving it to your son would constitute transfer and would make both you and your son criminals.

    76. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by x0ra · · Score: 1

      The right to bear arms is already limited because it's illegal to use it to kill people without a valid reason.

      That's bs, restriction happen either due to your age or after due-process.

    77. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      If you manufacture a firearm and don't comply with the registration and numbering requirements and other federal laws such that it's a "ghost gun" and then transfer that firearm to any other person including a son you will have broken federal law and the person you transferred it to would have as well for taking it.

      There is no debate on this, I suggest you read up because almost every firearm manufacturing website mentions this.

    78. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That isn't because we can't that is because we are trying to do it "nicely". We could just glass the place and be done with it entirely.

      Irrelevant. Anything that ups the cost of tyranny reduces the chances of tyranny.

    79. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by DaHat · · Score: 2

      If you manufacture a firearm and don't comply with the registration and numbering requirements

      Except those regulations (from the Federal level) do not apply to one off builds.

      and other federal laws

      Yes, there are some laws which prohibit what I could make in my garage (ie no machineguns).

      such that it's a "ghost gun"

      That it's a recently made up political term to describe something which has been legal for ages?

      and then transfer that firearm to any other person including a son you will have broken federal law and the person you transferred it to would have as well for taking it.

      You claim I'm wrong... yet offered nothing to refute what I said (or linked to).

      Yes, the law you are thinking of says it's illegal to build for distribution or sale, it's a question of what the intent of the builder was.

      When you fill out a 4473, there is a question as to if you are the real buyer or not. That doesn't mean you are prohibited from ever selling the gun later, be it in a week, month or decade you decide it's not right for you... you can still sell it... just so long as your intent at the time of purchase was to buy for yourself.

    80. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you can.... Jist like you can buy a m16..

    81. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. Gifts are perfectly legal.

    82. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by tricorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It isn't a Second Amendment case, it's First Amendment, very similar to Bernstein v US DoJ .

      I don't see why this is even an issue. If a state wants to prevent this, they should pass their own laws, as some have done.

      In most states, it is perfectly legal to make your own gun, it does not need to be registered or have a serial number, and you can't transfer it to anyone.

      It isn't legal to make an undetectable gun regardless of how you make it. There are easier ways to make an untraceable gun. Putting "3-D printer files" (or CNC milling files) on the internet shouldn't be legally different from publishing a book on how to make your own gun out of stuff you can buy at the hardware store with ordinary household tools.

      If someone is going to make their own illegal guns and sell them, restricting the distribution of plans, even if 3-D printers become much cheaper, easier to use, and more capable, isn't going to slow them down at all.

      Restricting the plans for the parts that aren't even controlled seems even more clear.

      I don't own any guns. I just think this is a dangerous precedent.

    83. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The Bill of Rights was clear. It has been muddied by Congressional and Judicial action.

      And the Constitution explicitly created judicial interpretation of the Constitution and all laws. It was done that way for a reason. The founding fathers did not believe they were infallible, and certainly didn't believe the people were infallible. That's why they left so much in the Constitution vague.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    84. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What has he done that is tyrannical?

      Only a tyrant could win an election rigged to go the other way!

      DuH!

    85. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      All the regulations apply the moment you transfer said gun to any other person.

      Are you really so stupid you can't google this?

      http://www.gunsholstersandgear... (not a legal source, a home gun maker site)
      https://www.atf.gov/resource-c... (look at answer 11 and 10)

      Although technically you can transfer a homemade firearm you would have to prove your intent. There are people in jail for this because the Jury believed they intended to transfer the firearm they produced. Any legal position where you base your defense around your intent at the time is going to be VERY dangerous path. Maybe your willing to gamble a decade in prison for it, but I'm not. And you transfer that firearm to any person and they commit a crime with it and I can guarantee you will be arrested and more than likely convicted.

    86. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by chmod+a+x+mojo · · Score: 2

      Not only to Iraq, and Afghanistan as someone else already said, but maybe someone should have told those North Vietnamese people they had no chance against the biggest, baddest most armed forces in the world...... oh wait, the big bad most armed forces kind of got their asses handed to them by guerrilla fighters armed with cheap falling appart Chinese rifles and shit covered sticks.

      Guess what, in Vietnam we had tanks, helicopters, fighter jets, and nuclear weapons. We. still. didn't. win.

      --
      To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
    87. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      If the line moves without changing the text what is the point of law?

      That's the right question. There are four basic purposes for law: 1) keeping order, 2) establishing standards, 3) resolving disputes and 4) protecting rights. And all of these words are open to interpretation, as are all words, and that meanings would change with time. They understood that shit happens. The founders were bright enough to know that their words would be open to interpretation, and that's why they distributed government across several entities and among many people. Presidents, governors, legislators, judges, bureaucrats. The founders intended for these groups to struggle with the meaning of the law, because they believed that when these struggles are conducted in good faith, decisions would move toward good solutions. Not the best solutions, generally, but solutions that were good enough. And the solutions wouldn't come fast, but they would come eventually...if people acted in good faith.

      And ultimately, (and this is something most people don't get), the law was never meant to be precise or absolute, or perfect in any way, but merely good enough.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    88. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it does. I can buy a mill and a lathe and make my own guns without affronting any law. Or I could own the same equipment and do whatever else I wanted with it. What is the difference? Some moron will blow off his hand thinking PLA can withstand a cartridge firing is the best reason I can think of.

    89. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can download exact specs for any older military pistol or rifle and make it yourself. How many countres make the AK47? It's not hard. 3D printint just uses really bad material

    90. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one has to be tough for TDS people, he's right.

      Trump on these guns:

      âoeI am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesnâ(TM)t seem to make much sense!â

      Now try to figure out what that means.

    91. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is utterly ridicules is you've only stopped law abiding citizens and done nothing to stop people out to do harm. In the process you have willingly attempted to undermine the right of the people to revolt by supporting a corrupt and unconscionable government that has demonstrated its willingness to reconstruct slavery through forced labor via theft thereof. Redistributing wealth is a form of slavery. Slave masters paid there slaves in a sense via food, water, and shelter. A government forcing you to work and then giving you these things back upon its discretion is not meaningfully different. Whether or not you treat your slaves well is not relevant. If slavery is wrong slavery under a different name (forced redistribution of wealth via socialism) is also wrong. To be clear, I'm not a Trump supporter and did not vote for him. Trump is as nuts as Hillary. Both are violent extremists. I also did not vote for Garry Johnson. He's also not a libertarian. Libertarians are by definition against the use of violence to achieve social and political objectives outside of self defense. Boarder walls and the like are not libertarian. Anybody suggesting otherwise is a republican in sheep's clothing.

    92. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I hope it is I wouldn't be too sure about my confidence in the supreme court ruling in our favor. There are numerous bad rulings or illogical ones. This logic (free speech) was used to argue a defense of child porn and the supreme court didn't go for it. Logically then the same logic would apply that if certain speech isn't speech then other speech can be declared not speech. Everything from links to blueprints to who knows what else. This is why such rulings no matter how disgusting said content is should not have gone the way they did.

    93. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      This does not make any sense. America has over a 200 year history of enacting laws that they were not explicitly allowed to enact. The constitution used to be the document listing the handful of things the government could regulate. Then the important part became the amendments listing the handful of things it cannot regulate. Now is it just a list of things it it tries to not overregulate too much, sometimes, if it feels like it. If there were any restrictions on governmental power in America, someone would of found them long before now.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    94. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by DaHat · · Score: 2

      All the regulations apply the moment you transfer said gun to any other person.

      And STILL you can't cite that regulation.

      Are you really so stupid you can't google this?

      Apparently... I'm so stupid that I found, read and posted the first link you referenced a full eight minutes before you replied: https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

      Your second link actually confirms what I said, which you did here:

      Although technically you can transfer a homemade firearm

      Ok...

      you would have to prove your intent

      And here I thought it was up to the government to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove their innocence

      You'll note that the BATFE is very specific with the use of the term "engaged in the business":

      https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q...
      https://www.atf.gov/firearms/q....

      There are people in jail for this because the Jury believed they intended to transfer the firearm they produced.

      [Citation Needed]

      Any legal position where you base your defense around your intent at the time is going to be VERY dangerous

      Any legal position you take that the government opposes is very dangerous... see the case of Defense Distributed as a recent example.

      Maybe your willing to gamble a decade in prison for it, but I'm not.

      That's fine, but who said I am? I am simply recognizing what the law and regulations say today.

      And you transfer that firearm to any person and they commit a crime with it and I can guarantee you will be arrested and more than likely convicted.

      Here in Washington state all transfers require a background check... if I decide to sell off some part of my collection because I'm short on money, including one or two completed 80% lowers, it would have to occur with the assistance of an FFL... would they go to jail as well if the person who receives it passes the background check and then goes on to do evil with it?

      No, in both would be complying with the law as written.

    95. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government can't legally use those weapons against the American people. Oh, but of course we're talking about a situation where the Constitution is null and void. OK, then: if ordered to use those weapons against the American people, which side of the conflict do you imagine the American military would support?

    96. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The files are readily available.

      Yup. Have been for a long time. Of course there is nothing new here other than the use of a 3D printer. Homemade street guns have been around forever, as well as instructions on how to make various guns from simple backalley types to more sophisticated weapons requiring machine tools to manufacture.

      There are all sorts of things I can easily make myself such as cameras, hifi amplifiers, telescopes, etc, but I don't and neither do most folk because it is easier to get a better product through other means, legal or illegal.

      Much ado about nothing.

    97. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      In this case, it's not a prohibition against manufacturing, it's a prohibition about even talking about a specific potential design to make one. Essentially a thought-crime.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    98. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      No, it is not. Go read James Madison's first cut at the 2nd Amendment. And then realize he simplified the concept. It's only if you don't LIKE the right that is enumerated that you twist it all around and include stuff like militias.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    99. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget that at the point of writing, automatic guns were already available

      Um... no. Not even close. Not even metallic cartridges were available. It was all glorious bore-fouling lead balls, with bore-fouling black powder pushing those bore-fouling lead balls down the barrel.

      If you know of some, please, link us to them because I would love to see them. (not being sarcastic. I'd love to see 18th-century autoloading firearms.)

      Cannon, grenades, etc already pre-dated the Mayflower, so.. yeah. But autoloaders are a distinctly 19-th century thing.

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    100. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume they will follow their oath to "uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION of the USA"

      FDR swore a very similar oath before he signed an executive order to round up American citizens and put them in concentration camps. So did the military personnel who carried it out.

      The people who committed torture in Abu Ghraib and the "Salt Pit" probably took oaths, too. If you're relying on someone's oath to protect you, you're fucked.

    101. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The Second Amendment talks about the right to keep and bear arms, not manufacture them ...

      It doesn't have to. In fact, even without the Second Amendment, Americans would have a right to keep and bear arms because neither the federal government nor the states have been granted the power to limit it.

      That is why the 9th Amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

      The right to manufacture guns and the right to speak about how to manufacture guns are retained by the people because the power to restrict those rights was never delegated to the government.

    102. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone pointed out yet d Katz posting under his name a couple months ago... I remember the post.

    103. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would if gun owners were generally in favor of his brand of tyranny.

    104. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by DaHat · · Score: 1

      Not in this case.

      When filling out a 4473 and asked the question of "Are you the actual buyer of the gun"... the correct answer is "yes" if you are going to give it as a gift, but if you are going to sell it to someone because you can get a better price (or they are prohibited), then you are committing a felony.

      Manufacturing a gun without an FFL is for personal use only. If you are doing so with the plan to give away or sell the result, it's illegal. If you make it for yourself, then one day decide to sell/give it, it's legal, though potentially risky.

    105. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by DaHat · · Score: 1

      No, manufacturing an fully automatic weapon, or modifying a semi-automatic to be fully automatic is illegal for all non-FFLs, and even then, not all FFLs can do it: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/d...

      The one exception I suppose... is if you've a serialized auto-sear which is properly registered with the feds... that you could drop into something new, maybe.

    106. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by jedidiah · · Score: 1, Informative

      > Bwahahaahaha have you looked at who your current president is? You already have a tyrannical government and no one is doing anything about it.

      What about the current president? He hasn't done anything outside his enumerated powers. Even then he has been well checked by both the Congress and the Courts.

      In reality he's the exact opposite of a tyrant.

      You need to lay off the Huff Po. It's rotting your brain.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    107. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      I found it amusing how this headline went out of it's way to try and bash Trump over this situation rather than acknowledge the obvious legal friction going on here.

      Liberals (and liberal journalists) have lost any pretense at all about APPEARING to care about ANY part of the Bill of Rights.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    108. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by DaHat · · Score: 2

      Know what I did? I went trying to find a case which matches what you described...

      Dude admits to undercover cop that selling his home made gun is not legal, and even tells cop how to claim to police that the cop made it himself. That's some nice mens rea for you right there:
      https://www.fredericknewspost....

      Building SBRs & supressors without first aquiring tax stamps is a big no no: http://gunsandrifles.com/2018/...

      Dude sells multiple undercover agents, sure doesn't sound like soly building them for personal use, then sometime later opting to sell them: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2...

      Manufacturing machineguns at home is generally illegal, especially when the person involved doesn't have the right FFL: https://www.usatoday.com/story...

      Not US based, but advertizing ones manufacturered guns for sale, not smart: https://www.illawarramercury.c...

      From the UK, making bullets at home and supplying them and illegal firearms to gangs isn't exactly a way to appear innocent: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

      The one case which I do recall, is this one: https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...

      In many jurisdictions, rolled tobacco is taxed at a different rate as loose tobacco, similarrly, ground cofee when compared to whole beans. To skirt these taxes, some places will sell you the raw products, let you put it into a machine and out comes your less taxed result.

      It's a clever and legal loophole, until the politicans close it: https://lacrossetribune.com/ne...

      This last case is similar, in that it's in a gray area. Technically it's the 'buyer' who is actually manufacturing the firearm, however it seems pretty clear what the guy's game was, and depending on the degree of assistance he provided (setup for instance), he could be said to be part of the manufacturing process. Of course, he plead guilty (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/dr-death-pleads-guilty-to-making-selling-ar-15-rifle-components/) and reading some of how he was doing it, it's pretty clear he had little case.

      Care to cite a single case which matches the description you made of a jury not believing them, that they built something for personal use and then later transferred it?

    109. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " The case revolves around an ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) issue"

      No, no it doesn't, as Progressive vs United States set when they published in print form how to make a thermonuclear bomb. This is unconscionable prior restraint as regarding the First Amendment and any other spin is exactly that, spin. Stop it.

    110. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes selling that book would be illegal.

      Sorry, but you are wrong.

    111. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, so why do you think they would not also try to do it "nicely" at home? Because that is the only conclusion one can draw from what you said.

    112. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      FDR swore a very similar oath before he signed an executive order to round up American citizens and put them in concentration camps. So did the military personnel who carried it out.

      And they did uphold the constitution. The Supreme Court reviewed the legality of the exclusion order in 1944 and found it to be constitutional. Which makes sense, really; if it's constitutional to draft men in a time of war, or to quarantine large populations during a disease outbreak, then it's no less constitutional to identify and isolate those who pose a security risk during a time of war.

      Of course the way they went about determining who was a security risk was rather problematic in this case, which was the real issue. There was quite a bit of anti-Japanese sentiment amongst the west-coast populace (and laws specifically discriminating against them) long before the war started.

    113. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is precisely the thing that people don't get. Trump is not a tyrant, because the system doesn't let him be one. Instead, he just plays one on Twitter, and people believe that.

      Putin is a tyrant. Erdogan is a tyrant. Duterte is a tyrant. The difference between them and Trump are not that Trump is less competent; people don't realise just how incompetent most tyrants actually are. The difference is that they don't have a system to stop them and so are perceived as more effective.

      The Muslim ban, for example, was stopped by the courts. Trump did not and could not defy those court orders. Similarly, Trump wants to fire Muller, but he can't because he knows what will happen if he tries.

      9/11 was the last gasp of the fading organisation known as Al Qaeda. By over-reacting and making it seem far bigger and scarier than it was, it breathed new life into it.

      That's also the biggest danger with Trump. Calling him a tyrant is counter-productive. Call him a wannabe all you like, but he is not (yet) a tyrant.

    114. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you assholes could show a bit of restraint, there'd be no need for these laws. Literally tens of thousands of people are killed every year in the US by firearms, and that's just suicides, then there's the people killed by stolen guns because gun owners can't figure out how to secure their weapons. And then there's the folks that legally buy weapons that have no legitimate civilian use and decide to go on a shooting spree.

      And while we're at it, the 2nd amendment didn't represent an individual right until some activist judges decided to reinterpret what the constitution said and throw up arbitrary restrictions, we can't have some arms, but other arms are fine, makes no sense to draw the lines where they are. It's a collective right for militia members to have military arms, not individual citizens' rights to have firearms.

    115. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Your (incorrect) definition of abridge might actually mean something if that word was used. But the phrase is "shall not be infringed".

    116. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Well we could allow the ghost guns and ban the ammo. Nothing in the constitution about that.

    117. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The context of the discussion is that someone thought that an oath to uphold the constitution would mean the military will take their side in a hypothetical showdown. I (the AC you responded to) said that an oath won't help.

      What you're saying is even the actual constitution won't help. So... yeah. That's even worse.

    118. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by guruevi · · Score: 1

      That's ATF's opinion. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t enumerate a list of specific things which are or are not covered.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    119. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by cstacy · · Score: 1

      More Pro gun control Fake News.

      VERY IMPORTANT point. If you are legally able to buy/own a firearm (AK, AR, BB gun, Shotgun, Pistol, etc). You are 100% legally able to build yourself one or 100 of them. Just not for sale, must be for your own use.

      If it's one of these 3D printed guns we're talking about, you had better make 100 of them. Then you will be able to get off 70 shots before it's back to the printer for you. Assuming you survived those 30 explosions....

      Is there a machine that melts them down and makes more raw material for the printer, too? Like the Creepy Crawlers machine when I was a kid?

    120. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Dare+nMc · · Score: 1

      I think the closest is going to be the Volley Gun I would guess a Nock gun firing 17 barrels at once would be close to automatic, but useless anywhere but on a ship. 90 years later before the first Gatling gun, so probably not something the founders would very easily imagine.

    121. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by cstacy · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget that at the point of writing, automatic guns were already available

      Um... no. Not even close. Not even metallic cartridges were available. It was all glorious bore-fouling lead balls, with bore-fouling black powder pushing those bore-fouling lead balls down the barrel.

      If you know of some, please, link us to them because I would love to see them. (not being sarcastic. I'd love to see 18th-century autoloading firearms.)

      Semiautomatic handguns were preceded by revolvers, which was basically the same thing. (You pull a trigger, a bullet comes out, no need to reload, just pull again and again bang bang bang bang bang bang. ) That technology is from the mid-1500s.

      The Puckle semi-automatic flintlock was circa 1722 (a dozen rounds automatically fired from cylindrical magazines that you could pop in). The Chinese also invented rotary canons in the early 1700 (hundred round hopper magazine). The year 1777 saw the Belton's semi-auto flintlock musket, which fired 20 rounds in 5 seconds from a paper cartridge. The Continental Congress ordered 100 of them for the army.

      By the mid 1800s we had things like electrically ignited machine guns, steam driven machine guns, multiple barrels, etc. Lots of automatic and semi-automatic guns all over the place. Bessemer (of steelmaking process fame) patented a hydro-pneumatic blowback water cooled fully automatic canon. The Gatling rotary cannon (200 rounds/minute) was 1861. The first truly modern machine gun may have been from Sweden in 1870: fully automatic recoil-operated firearm action. By 1884 there was the Maxim machine gun, which is just like what we have today. That's a full auto water cooled 600 rounds/minute canon.

      So, yes, the framers were definitely aware of automatic high-rate cartridge-based weapons of mass destruction. They ordered a bunch of them.

    122. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by cstacy · · Score: 1

      No, manufacturing an fully automatic weapon, or modifying a semi-automatic to be fully automatic is illegal for all non-FFLs, and even then, not all FFLs can do it: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/d...

      The one exception I suppose... is if you've a serialized auto-sear which is properly registered with the feds... that you could drop into something new, maybe.

      Correct. An auto-seer is itself considered a machine gun. (Even though it's just a little tiny trivially manufactured piece of metal that goes into the gun. It is the Fun Part.)

    123. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by TigerPlish · · Score: 2

      Wow. Just. wow.

      So, yes, the framers were definitely aware of automatic high-rate cartridge-based weapons of mass destruction. They ordered a bunch of them.

      OK, 2nd amendment, written 1791, right?

      Automatic and semi automatic mean one thing: You derive power from the discharging round to drive the action to load the next round. Either straight blowback, or long recoil, or short recoil, or a gas tap. But you must drive the action with the power from the discharge. Cranks don't count as automatic, levers don't count, double-action revolvers don't count, single-action revolvers don't count.

      Now go back and read your post.

      A Maxim is automatic, but it's way after the 2nd was written.

      A Gatling isn't automatic. The energy to operate it comes from a crank, or a motor, or a hydraulic drive. No drive = no shoot, no matter how many rounds you have.

      A Belton isn't automatic.. in fact, there are none left. Even moreso, there are no records of any been sold or delivered, contrary to what you wrote.

      The Puckle, had to be cranked by hand. How does that make it automatic?

      In fact, the Government turned down the Winchester lever-loading repeater for reasons which I still can't fathom, in favor of single-shot breechloaders. The Government didn't get a repeating rifle until what.. the Sharps? And didn't get a really good one till 1903... and their first autoloading rifle was the M1 in 1936. At least they had an autoloading pistol in 1911.

      You seem hell bent on showing that the people who wrote the 2nd knew about weapons that simply didn't exist when they wrote it. Why is that?

      --
      The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
    124. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Well, ain't you the dummy. You know how you buy a meal with goodwill, why it should be obvious, you provide good will in return. That's right son, you buy good deeds by paying for them with good deeds. I guess the thought never occurred to you, probably not a nice person, yep, you probably would struggle to be fed by good deeds.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    125. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      What is so complicated about having no authority to challenge an action solely at the discretion of the executive branch ?

      This was an action of the state department concerning export of firearms. So not only has he usurped the authority of the executive he has also made national law from a federal district.

    126. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are impinging on the first amendment. They are not allowed to tell people how to make them, thats different from actually making them.

      But nonetheless, I find it interesting that the "states rights" outweigh the 1st and 2nd amendments according to this court, which I find illogical. It also seems odd for "libs" to be fighting for states rights... May you live in interesting times.. well these are pretty interesting.

      Why would "states rights" not outweigh the 1st and 2nd amendments? The Bill of Rights applies to the Federal Government which receives all its powers from the individual states. Congress may not create laws for the Union which go against the 1st or 2nd amendments; the individual states are not necessarily so limited.

      This would be like establishing the United Nations, wording the United Nations' constitution so that individual member countries give the UN no power to dictate troop movements, having the member nations agree to a second document that expressly forbids the UN from dictating troop movements, and then arguing that these documents prevent the individual member nations from moving troops as they please.

      Your confusion highlights the seeming transfer of sovereignty from the individual member states to the US. Today, it's as if the US is a country in its own right and citizens of the member states often think of themselves as being "Americans" first and state citizens second (Texans excepted). The EU seems to be going the same way with Italians, Frenchmen, Germans, and Spaniards increasingly referring to themselves as "Europeans". Perhaps the UN is the next evolution in this process and we'll all be living under one world government in the future. Perhaps the NWO conspiracy theorists are onto something.

      Captcha: "concerns"

    127. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      The second amendment was to allow the states to protect themself from a overreaching federal government. Unfortunately today the states have lost most of their autonomy and are mostly just providences of the federal government and no longer function as individual countries.

    128. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Noishkel · · Score: 2

      Ok, tell me how you plan to use your plastic gun to take down the tyrannical government

      You'd use a cheap 3D printed plastic gun as a stepping stepping stone to get better weapons. Kind of like the original 'liberator' made out of stamped sheet metal that the US made in droves during WW2. And as to your non-argument about standing up against a modern military... well I'll remind you how little success the US had in digging out any number of militias all over the middle east. And that's in a nation outside of the US, where you have the military that is willing to fight people that aren't native to the US. Combine that the idea of American military members having to shoot civilians resisting against a tyrannical government and you'll quickly see how hard it is to motivate people to shoot at other people in your own communities. Did you forget about the Brundy Stand off situation a few years ago? By your logic the feds should have been able to roll over over those militiamen, but the feds ended up just standing down and tried to fight it in the court.

    129. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      I know two elderly cancer doctors that have had many meals paid with goodwill.
      Something about saving someone's relative's life and they want to buy you dinner.
      Musicians on the other hand make most of their money from concert ticket sales which is why free music downloads and free plays on the radio are usualy a net
      benefit to the musician. It's also why many musicians intentionally give their
      music away.

    130. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then it's no less constitutional to identify and isolate those who pose a security risk during a time of war.

      Yeah, except for that inconvenient stuff about not depriving people of life or liberty without due process...

      Face it, the interment was a wholly fascist action. Once you start imprisoning people for what they might do, you're on a hell of a slippery slope!

    131. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, but Vietnamese are much harder to beat than Americans

    132. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Oh, uh, yeah. Can't do that. Oh well. We can read what Scalia wrote in District of Columbia vs Heller:
          " 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "
      ===
      Me, I would love to have a howitzer and mortar, a small tank...but I'm not so sure about some of my neighbor or some people posting on /.
      ====
      Setting aside any requirement, I urge anyone who owns a gun to take gun safety courses, and to review them on a regular basis.

    133. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      It's illegal to make a gun for the purpose of selling it unless you're licensed. However, it's perfectly legal to make one for yourself and later sell it, though the burden of proof will be on you to show that you didn't make it specifically for resale.

      There is a very big caveat to this.

      You can make a gun, and you can transfer it to another person later, but it is illegal to make it for the purpose of transferring it to someone else.

      In other words, you cannot set out to make one to give to Uncle Bob for his birthday. And it doesn't matter whether you sell it or not. You just can't make it for that purpose.

    134. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Only if you made it for the purpose of giving it to your son.

      If you made it for yourself, kept it around and maybe shot it once in a while, and later decided to give it to your son, that's okay.

      And it doesn't matter, federally, whether you give it to someone or sell it.

      But if you live in one of those few asshole states that requires a background check and serial number even for private transfers, you're pretty much stuck. In practice, you can't even give it away.

    135. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      By your logic the feds should have been able to roll over over those militiamen, [...]

      Of course they could have. They didn't want to, because Waco.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    136. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by oneunixguy · · Score: 1

      It is not illegal to make and sell guns. You just need a manufacturing FFL. So much disinformation.

    137. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      There are several things you're missing here.

      Most states do not require a 4473 for private transfer. If you live in one of those states, private transfer is fine...

      ... provided that you did not manufacture it for that purpose. That's what ATF says.

      But in those asshole states that do require a 4473 for private transfer, the part that will stick you isn't the part about whether you are buyer or seller (this is according to ATF... they don't care if you give it away or sell it as long as you didn't make it for that purpose). The part that gets you is the serial number. It has to go on the form but there isn't any.

    138. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by shaitand · · Score: 1

      This actually violates both the first and second amendment.

    139. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "If you start off intending to make a bunch to sell/give away, you are going to have problems"

      This is it exactly. I am not a lawyer but I have read these laws in some detail and no regulation I found actually barred selling or gifting the firearm subsequently the regulation is on manufacturing with that intent. According to anything I ever came across there is nothing wrong with selling the gun later if you decide you don't want it anymore as long as that wasn't the plan from the start. The feds have discretion on whether or not they believe you must as the IRS does with regard to many tax violations and any ATF agent I ever spoke to said they mostly look at quantity. This is similar to the police using the quantity of a drug in your possession as the basis for intent to sell.

      If you make an AR-15 that is probably fine, if you make 10 AR-15's you might be in trouble and if you did make 10 you better have a huge family living with you (in the same household could be reasonably sold as personal) or be able to explain how they are different and what lead to making 10. Either they buy it or don't, it's at their discretion. If you've made six and sold five because well, you just keep deciding you want to build a newer and cooler one and need the funds back from the last they are probably less likely to believe you, especially if you sold at a profit.

      Yes there is the FFL issue but under Hillary Clinton's revision to the list someone manufacturing (and that includes putting a scope on already existing gun to sell it thanks to rule revisions she pushed) doesn't just need the FFL, they also have to pay $5000 as if their guns were military grade arms for export for a license from an agency that stopped issuing them.

    140. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by shaitand · · Score: 1

      It's up to the BATFE to prove intent in court and before that it is up to you to convince the agent not to charge you in the first place because it is at their discretion. Just like cops busting people for drugs the usual rule of thumb they go by is quantity.

    141. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by shaitand · · Score: 1

      No, the second amend was to allow the PEOPLE to protect themselves from overreaching government.

    142. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, the phrasing is "Shall not be infringed", not 'abridged'. Second, as JesseMcDonald explained in response, that's not what abridge means anyway!

      I also want to point out that the protections of the 2nd amendment were intentionally made much stronger than the protections of the first amendment.
      In the First amendment the phrasing is "Congress shall make no law...". It prohibited federal laws, but allowed the states to make laws against speech (though the Courts later decided that the 14th amendment effectively extended the prohibition to the states as well).
      The second amendment uses the stronger phrasing "Shall not be infringed", which would apply to all levels of government, not just Congress (though the courts have not always interpreted it that way).

    143. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C'mon - it's Soviet America. EVERYONE gets convicted. Coerced false confession, man - they call it "plea bargain" - that's how the keep the Gulag full and remind us we're no longer a free people. Get with the picture, gramps!

    144. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely an all plastic gun needs all plastic ammo to avoid setting off metal detectors!

    145. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked nuking your own population and land is a loser. You can't lord it over corpses and resources are awful hard to get out of glassed territory.

    146. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      You do realize if things get so bad that armed citizens are ready to face down the government using armed conflict that FFL's are likely not a factor?

      I mean if things are so bad that you're willing to raise a firearm against the government the laws preventing that gun from being converted to full automatic are probably not going to be a deterrent. Likewise laws controlling explosives.

    147. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Written in a time where you had to manually load a gun. The founding fathers would have never agreed to this amendment if they had know about modern weapons. In fact, they talked about it in their diaries.

    148. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      gun plans aren't illegal unless dod is evaluating them for use or something like that. they're not illegal even in countries with very tight gun laws.

      manufacturing guns isn't illegal either in usa as long as you register it.
      it's really perplexing from what angle the judge is looking at this. besides than that what constitutes as the "gun" in usa is fairly fucked up to begin with.

      furthermore, it's a really shitty gun and walmart sells everything needed for a better gun and ammo to go with it.

      the right to bear arms refers specifically to military arms. not just guns, but everything that a military unit uses for warfare. battleships are arms. nuclear weapons are arms. guided missiles are arms. bows are arms. cannons are arms. rifled artillery pieces are arms. tanks are arms. the reason was quite simply that they didn't want to give the arms to the government, because the guys who came up with said amendment had their own military units.

      I'm not american, so whatever, but that amendment hasn't been honored since the '20s and it's really fucking stupid to bring it up everytime gun control comes up since it really hasn't been in effect since fucking forever now. maybe if you want to actually control arms then take the amendment out. it's really simple for congress to do - but having it there and not honoring it makes all the amendments seem like jokes.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    149. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Not factual. The Supreme Court grabbed authority to interpret the constitution pretty much without authority to do so. The constitution itself certainly did not grant it. By now it has the element of precedence and is not likely to be challenged.

      Of course the fact is the Supreme Court has on more than one occasion later overturned its own decisions, effectively meaning its original interpretation was wrong. It has not yet (that I'm aware) manged to throw out its second interpretation and returned to the first, though I expect we'll see that eventually.

      At that point we'll have the people pointing out the inconsistency of allowing an effectively uncontrollable (over the short term) political court to carry such power.

    150. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There are exceptions to both the 1st and 2nd and the judge seems to be saying that this is one of them.

      For example, you can't publish or even speak material that the government deems to be a state secret. You can't build or own certain weapons, even for your own private defence.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    151. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all plastic gun will kill the shooter

    152. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by saider · · Score: 1

      But these were blueprints for legal weapons. It is legal for you to manufacture your own gun. You just can't sell them.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    153. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There are exceptions to both the 1st and 2nd

      Really? I'm looking at the Bill of Rights right now, and I don't see any exceptions.

    154. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Your response reeks of, "Your response destroys my argument so I'm going to change the terms to exclude everything you've said."

      If I press a button and lots of bullets sequentially head towards the enemy I have an automatic weapon. I don't give a fuck how that automatic mechanism is implemented, I care that it works and that my target gets lead poisoning.

      Shit, you'll be telling me next that the a10 doesn't have an automatic weapon attached. Sure as fuck don't see the pilot leaning down out of the cockpit to pull a trigger 2000 times a second.

    155. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by SharpFang · · Score: 2

      So, any state can legalize slavery and it will be legal because state rights outweigh the constitution?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    156. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is primarily a first amendment issue. You may dislike the current president and guns. Do you dislike freedom of speech and the press? The internet is the medium of publication in 2018.

    157. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The downloaded plans have detailed instructions for where to add steel to be in compliance with the law against all-plastic firearms, if you choose.

    158. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There must be a specific minimum percentage of ferrous material, so it can be detected by a magnetometer. The firing pin and springs alone are not sufficient, and why the CAD drawings include pockets for specific steel shapes to be added if you wish.

    159. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Take a look to see if you can find when in American history it was illegal to make your own guns. I don't think you'll find it. Hell, when I was a kid growing up in New York, someone got my dad what was basically a "build your own gun" kit for Christmas. This was before the internet.

    160. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      A Gatling isn't automatic. The energy to operate it comes from a crank, or a motor, or a hydraulic drive. No drive = no shoot, no matter how many rounds you have.

      So if I make the gun's reload mechanism powered by any other energy source than chemical energy of the cartridge, that makes it non-automatic? Like, GAU-8/A Avenger is a 30 mm hydraulically driven seven-barrel Gatling-style autocannon shooting 3,900 30×173 mm rounds per minute, the gun around which the A-10 "Warthog" airplane was built, is not automatic?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    161. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it IS legal to manufacture your own firearms. All state and federal laws apply to a self manufactured firearm.

      Apparently being "3D" makes the self manufactured firearms get super fucking scary. Not to mention it endangers all of the little children.

    162. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by aquacrayfish · · Score: 1

      Even then he has been well checked by both the Congress

      *Snicker*.... huh?

    163. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also seems odd for "libs" to be fighting for states rights... May you live in interesting times.. well these are pretty interesting.

      Both sides use states rights when it fits their ideology. Neither side actually cares about states rights. With an all-Republican federal government, expect more states rights arguments from the Democrats.

    164. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      " The case revolves around an ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) issue"

      No, no it doesn't, as Progressive vs United States set when they published in print form how to make a thermonuclear bomb. This is unconscionable prior restraint as regarding the First Amendment and any other spin is exactly that, spin. Stop it.

      Yes, it does. If you don't agree with it that's fine, but the core of THIS CASE is that the government used ITAR to prevent distribution.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    165. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Unless you put a serial number on it. Say 1776, 1789, or just a number 1 on it. I've never seen any requirement to actually register said serial anywhere. The weapon just has to have a SN on it.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    166. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by dwillden · · Score: 2

      Actually it's more like trying to stop the publication of the Anarchists Cookbook in the 60's. The feds lost that case. Or stop the publication of plans for a Nuclear bomb in the 70's. The feds lost that one. Or publish the code to PGP privacy in the 80's, the Feds lost that one.

      This is why the State Dept. was about to settle and allow publication. Because the courts have previously ruled that the government can't silence speech even if that speech includes plans, diagrams and instructions for weapons and explosives. Such information is speech and the government can't block it. The states will lose when it gets to a court that will look at the long standing legal precedents rather than just rule based on political views.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    167. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      I would like to think we basically agree save a few details. Absolutely, meaning of words change and if the law has any meaning then the proper way to handle that change is to change the text of the law to accommodate the new meaning. The law should be interpreted as it was written in that context.

      A good example is capital punishment and "cruel and unusual" punishment. I don't think any court could hold that the death penalty is unconstitutional because it was practiced at the time of the constitution. If enough states had outlawed the practice (a lot has) then updating the law to say "btw it's cruel to kill people" isn't an issue.

      However, if you change the meaning of the law through judicial fiat then there is no bounds to the law. Is holding people in cages against their will, despite what laws they broke, cruel and unusual? It's up to a random judge to decide and not the people. It explicitly removes that issue from the legislative ability of the people to decide their own laws.

    168. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by torkus · · Score: 1

      You assume criminals will obey those laws while ignoring ones like 'don't make people dead'?

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    169. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by dwillden · · Score: 1

      While it's never been challenged in court and might not hold up under a strict interpretation of the 2A. The prohibition on "undetectable" firearms is manufacture and possession.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    170. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Well for one thing: the 14th has pretty much gutted the 10th when it comes to the states rights. And regarding the 2nd specifically the McDonald v.Chicago ruling extended the 2nd onto the States.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    171. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is truly astonishing how many people do not realize that such exceptions can and will be used against them. It is always the other person who will be silenced by an exception because their words are dangerous, never themselves because their words are innocent and pure.

    172. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      By this logic, you must utterly reject the 1988 Heller decision, wherein the SCOTUS decided that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right to firearms ownership, which was NOT the interpretation from the founding up until then. In other words, they moved the line without changing the text.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    173. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by dwillden · · Score: 1

      What brand is that? Trading insults with the media is tyranny? He hasn't arrested any of the media or other dissenters. Nobody is being hauled off to labor or re-education camps in the middle of the night. The only groups engaged in organized rioting are the leftist Anti-fa.

      You don't just get to claim tyranny without documenting it. What has he done that's tyrannical? Cut taxes? Oh the horror! Brought NK to the negotiating table? How evil. Acted to protect our borders against illegal immigration and other external threats? Terrifying. Cut the regulatory burdens on business and industry? That's not very nice.

      Oh that's right he's badmouthed the press, blocked CNN's asshole reporter from a few press briefings (while allowing plenty of other media to ensure it's still well covered. And he's insulted anyone who insults him because he is rather childish in that way. But that's still not tyranny.

      You might be able to make an argument about the families at the borders and the kids in cages, except that policy has been enforced with that practice of separating the kids from the families in each of the last three Administrations, So if that counts, then Bush II and Obama were also Tyrants.

      Trump has not tried and does not have the ability under our system of government to grab supreme authority, And to counter any claim of tyranny is the fact that so many of his actions have been halted at least temporarily by the courts, but on further legal review have been allowed to go forward.

      So again, where is his tyranny?

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    174. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Home manufacturing of firearms is legal in every state already, some with almost no restrictions. This is prior restraint of speech, nothing more.

    175. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, even without the Second Amendment, Americans would have a right to keep and bear arms because neither the federal government nor the states have been granted the power to limit it.

      That is why the 9th Amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

      And the 10th Amendment 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".

      In other words, without the 2nd Amendment, states absolutely would be legally allowed to limit guns because the 10th would be giving them that power.

      "But it also says 'or to the people'" you might say? That is a very good point. So the question is, how is it determined if a particular power goes to the states or to the people? Unfortunately I do not have an answer to that. It is something I've always been mildly curious about but just never had a strong reason to look into it. It could turn out that you are still correct because of the inclusion of "or to the people" and I would be perfectly fine with that.

    176. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all you other dumb-asses out there... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ

      Nathan

    177. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by dwillden · · Score: 1

      The same way the original Liberator pistols were intended to fight tyranny. From the dark, from back ally's. The idea is a widely distributed firearm, that can be used without warning, from any direction at any time against the forces of the tyrant.

      the original liberator was intended to be shipped in mass quantities to the Ghetto's of Poland to allow the Jews and other undesirables to have a last defense. To be able to shoot at German forces from every direction and then be quickly disassembled to be hidden or just discarded. Unfortunately we ran out of time and couldn't get the original into Poland in significant numbers in time.

      And such a weapon can still kill the jack booted thug caught alone, allowing his more effective weapons to be taken. But even more it's the concept. The idea that gun control is dead if anyone can print all the guns they want in the privacy of their own homes. And you can't just stop 3d Printing either. There is at least one 3D printer that can print all it's own components except basic wiring, simple motors and a raspberry pi for the controller. In short you can print your own printers, and use them to print guns. And 3D printing is getting better, materials are getting better, and the firearm designs that can be printed are getting better.

      As to the Tanks and Jets. Guess who has to man those. US citizens in the service, who even if they did support tyranny would find a very big difference between operations here and operations overseas. Their families. Overseas their families are safe back here in the US, thousands of miles and an ocean keeping them safe from reprisals. Here in the US, their families are among the people they would be fighting and might very well be fighting along side those fighting tyranny. And that also assumes the armed forces don't act in opposition against any attempt at tyranny. When we swear the oath of service, it's to the Constitution, not the President or Congress or any political party or movement.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    178. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by harrkev · · Score: 1

      you can't publish or even speak material that the government deems to be a state secret.

      So, the concept of a tube that holds a bullet is a state secret? Wow, this sort of thing was invented centuries ago. If you think THAT is dangerous, then the terrible secret of the "sail" is certainly dangerous -- making a boat move without an engine

      Also, even an "AR-15 receiver" can be had for less than $100, so the plans for those are suddenly state secrets?

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    179. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This is certainly new territory for the law. A machine that prints guns on demand isn't something that really fits with either the "build it yourself" or "manufacturer" models.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    180. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by blindseer · · Score: 2

      I believe you have no understanding whatsoever on the futility of any gun control laws.

      There are more firearms in the USA than there are people. Very few of them are registered, and the registrations that exist are decentralized and error prone. We have now reached a level of technology that any attempt to create a kind of "ballistic fingerprint" or other means of identifying firearms are trivially defeated. This same technology is to the point that people with minimal machining skill can construct a functional firearm if they so choose. We are simply one small step from where constructing a firearm from raw materials is literally child's play.

      Pass whatever laws you like on controlling firearms and they will do absolutely nothing to prevent those with intent on homicide and/or suicide from being successful in obtaining a firearm. These laws simply do not work any more. They will never work again, we've advanced technologically beyond any kind of effective enforcement. Attempts to enforce such laws will be met vigorously and potentially violently. To keep people from building a firearm now would require severe restrictions on what people may say or do to the point it would interfere with people doing so much as change a tire on their car. The tools to do the most basic of repairs are now indistinguishable from those to produce a firearm, that's how interwoven this technology is in our lives.

      Give up already. Your gun grabbing ways may still win a battle here and there but in the end the war is lost. You are simply going to have to get more creative if the intent is to limit crime and suicide, such as treating the actual disease rather than the tools used in the acts.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    181. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Also those were internment camps not concentration camps or labor camps. They were wrong. but we did not pack them into barracks structures like sardines, intentionally overworking and starving them at the same time, trying to kill them off.

      What happened was wrong, but they were interred but kept together as families in family housing units.

      They were considered a security risk, and were moved from the coasts, often losing all their property and possessions in the process, but they were not in concentration camps designed to kill them off one way or the other.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    182. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      I am assuming you meant Heller vs DC in 2008.

      you must utterly reject Heller

      No, it doesn't. It is clear from historical context and the meaning at the time the 2nd amendment was written that it was an individual right from the very drafting of the Constitution and the framers intended it as such. The Heller opinion understood "the" right that had existed before the writing of the constitution just like the 1st and "the" right to peaceably assemble and speak. It is written clearly as an individual "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Does the 4th reference a collective right or an individual right? These are rights that exist to the individual without the constitution.

      All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

      Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ...

      On the other hand, the minority opinion referenced past city fire laws, unused revisions of the 2nd amendment, and tried to imply an intent to the text from those references. All the while ignoring historical documents explicitly stating the intent, purpose, and meaning to craft an interpretation they wanted. It created a byzantine labyrinth of jurisprudence that no laymen can follow, ripe for lawyers to abuse and for the courts to change the law without legislative oversight.

      You are saying that two different courts had two different opinions and because of this I should abandon the text and meaning as it was understood at the time it was signed into law. This is the problem with having courts decide the meaning of the law effectively changing the force of law without changing the text of the law. There are no bounds or limits to the interpretive power of lawyers.

    183. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      There doesn't appear to be any Constitutional basis for these piss-ant federal judges to issue universal injunctions, which one of the Supreme Court Justices pointed out in the last go-around, begging Trump to make this argument next time.

    184. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

      Linguistic gymnastics will never be abused by lawyers.

    185. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by torkus · · Score: 1

      No no no...lots of lawyers will get rich.

      Lots of politicians will be able to say they "did something" or at least tried. Those same idiots will be able to blame others when, eventually, someone uses this 3D printed gun to harm or kill someone.

      Never mind the thousands of other people killed by legally owned guns, or the millions of non-3D-printed guns in existance. This one will count more.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    186. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I guess it's all right to treat free American citizens that way, as long as we don't starve them or gas them or work them to death!

      And it's crystal clear in retrospect that the notion they were a "security risk" is rooted deeply in racism, not law or logic.

      P.s. I also keep typing "interred" when I mean "interned." AFAIK they were not buried alive.

    187. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying that 'laws as written' is inherently impossible; there will ALWAYS be interpretation and reevaluation, because humans are humans.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    188. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      No, I was just pointing out the flaw in the argument that certain rights laid out in the constitution are inalienable, when clearly there are many examples of them being restricted.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    189. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this whole thread is a cluster of ignorance or wooshing over my head. The 2nd amendment says 'infringed' not 'abridged'

      https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992

    190. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Why is it impossible? Yes, there will be interpretation and reevaluation. If you do not have a foundation to start then anything can be interpreted through linguistic gymnastics. If the meaning has changed such that the effect of law will change then the law must be changed by the legislature and not the courts.

      The courts should be the experts in historical jurisprudence understanding the law and not linguistic experts to change the law. Do you really not see the difference?

    191. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by harrkev · · Score: 1

      While you have a point, comparing a single-shot pistol to a nuclear weapon is certainly a stretch.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    192. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One slight mod: it isn't granted to us. We have it as a natural right. The 2nd amendment restricts the government from trying to take away our natural right to bear arms.

    193. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol oh man, imagine being and engineer and being held liable for every design you certified uga booga

    194. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      What is so complicated about "[s]hall not be infringed?"

      The rest of the sentence.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    195. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Not factual. The Supreme Court grabbed authority to interpret the constitution pretty much without authority to do so. The constitution itself certainly did not grant it. By now it has the element of precedence and is not likely to be challenged.

      You're thinking of judicial review which is not the same thing. It's a common mistake, Terry. For example, did you know that "originalism" is a type of judicial interpretation? Various other types of judicial interpretation are Structuralism, Literalism, and the Doctrinal Approach.

      The founders most definitely intended judicial interpretation, because they knew there would be instances where a set of rights actually came in conflict with one another. If there was no need for judicial interpretation, there would have been no need for a judiciary at all. The Constitution is not just some decision table where you plug in a question and it displays an answer. It is not a Magic 8-ball.

      Of course the fact is the Supreme Court has on more than one occasion later overturned its own decisions, effectively meaning its original interpretation was wrong.

      You just make my point. Interpretations change.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    196. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      The second part but it is predicated on the first part. The second amendment basically says "because a state needs to be able to protect itself, it's citizens should be allowed to own weapons". This was written in a time where state militias didn't own the weapons but rather the militia was made up of citizens who used their own personal guns. This also predates the federal standing armies. Basically, armies were adhoc constructions quickly created only when needed then disbanded. Basically the second amendment was so that states had the ability to quickly create armies to fight off tyrants foreign or domestic.

    197. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Who is manufacturing them? This is like Metallica suing Napster for distributing mp3 files. The judge says you can't download these files. What if you printed the text of these files into a book and sold it? Would that book be deemed illegal?

      Sure. Copyright is an obvious limitation on free speech, you're not free to reuse what someone else has created. If these guns designs were copyrighted then copyright would apply, the question is whether they can stop content that is original or posted with permission. Instructions on doing something illegal has generally been considered speech, it may be illegal to make meth but it's not illegal to describe the chemical reactions to make meth. Technical progress might have made it easier to go from a blueprint to a product, but the principle is unchanged - it's not actually illegal until you do it. Pretty sure they'll eventually win this one on first amendment reasons.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    198. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Good point. The thread started out talking about the 2nd Amendment, but it's the 1st that refers to "abridging the freedom of speech". The 2nd Amendment is considerably more direct with "shall not be infringed".

      Either way, the GP's bizarre statement that it's OK to set conditions and limitations on these rights (1st or 2nd Amendment) so long as a "path" or "bridge" is left open to exercising them is obviously nonsense. Any conditions or limitations Congress might attach to the exercise of these rights would both abridge and infringe them.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    199. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This doesn't get you. Many guns don't have serial numbers - guns were only required to have serial numbers sometime in the 60s in the US, many from before then don't have it.

    200. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Noishkel · · Score: 1

      They didn't want to, because Waco

      Yeah and how many federal agents died when they tried to storm that compound? How about how many children died when the feds set the building on fire with smoke grenades? And that was just one situation with a group of unprepared nut jobs. In the Brundy situation that had mobile groups of militiamen that were able to cover the feds from multiple angles. If they had started firing, the feds would have lost hard.

      Ultimately this is the failure of this entire 'the government has nukes' argument. Yes, the government does have incredible destructive capability. But that doesn't mean they are immune from attack by a dedicated resistance. Especially if that theoretical resistance force has any professional military that are willing to help train said resistance to use captured military equipment. Anti gun assholes get all bent out of the shape about people getting a hold of AR-15 type rifles. What the hell do you think would happen if a resistance movement started hitting poorly secured national guard depots and running off with 40mm grenades, BGM-71 TOW missile launchers, mortars, and light armored vehicle?

    201. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if needed, the people need to be able to ban together again. Now I'd gladly put my money on 1m dudes with plastic guns vs the 100 solders who automatic weapons who would blindly follow and order to attack a group of 1m US citizens

    202. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I do see that difference. Yet prior to 1988, to go back to my example, the 2nd Amendment was understood by all, including the Founding Fathers, to not contemplate a universal individual right to firearms. After 1988 it was, because of 'linguistics.'

      Hell, the entire concept of the modern SCOTUS is because of a footnote in a decision in a writ of mandamus.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    203. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are poor examples. Occupying foreign lands is very different than occupying your own.

    204. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      And it doesn't matter whether you sell it or not.

      Right. It doesn't matter whether you're making it to sell for cash, for barter, or as a gift. The GP claimed that it couldn't be sold at all, so I limited my response to that subject, but the main point is that it has to be made for your own personal use. Once it's been legally manufactured for your own use, however, there is no restriction against trading it or giving it away if you so choose.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    205. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't. Plastic guns blow up after a shot or two. This entire issue is preposterous except for the Constitutional violations being committed. These plans are basically useless at present unless you can stir up a bunch of fear and hysteria and use it to further erode the Constitution.

    206. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First i see you like gambling, hoping the military will side with you.
      So since the military is siding with you, then why do you need the guns? the military is far better equipped than you are.

      To be honest if the military is operating outside its command structure, i would worry about the military coup trying to install its own dictator.
      which goes back to the original statement, how do you plan to take them down with your plastic gun?

    207. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you forget about the Brundy Stand off situation a few years ago?

      what about it? I don't recall them successfully overthrowing the govt. They were stuck in the building so the feds had all the time in the world to wait them out. why fight when eventually they are going to come out on their own.

    208. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Can you provide source to your claim. Everything I have read and searched disagrees with you and the quoted portions of the 2008 majority opinion I referenced made it quite clear that the understanding from 1689 forward has been an individual right. There is historical precedent, legal precedent, and cultural precedent to establish an individual right. If it is a collective right then the same language would apply to the 1st and 4th. Are the rights in the 1st and 4th collective rights or individual rights?

    209. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      The 2nd Amendment is unique that it has that odd prefatory clause.

      I quite enjoyed "The Second Amendment: A Biography" by Michael Waldman as an excellent overview of the entire subject.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    210. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by guruevi · · Score: 1

      That is indeed the ATF's opinion.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    211. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      I read the introduction of that book and gleaned what I could. Not sure if it titillates my legal intrigue. Why is the opinion of a speech writer for Bill Clinton a good source? A democrat disagrees with a conservative opinion. Shocked I tell you! You can't even get the date right (more than once and corrected) of the decision yet you think it was an excellent overview of the entire subject? Based on that alone it seems faulty. Was it enjoyable because you agreed with it before reading it and you wanted an expert to validate your opinion? Or because it made you question your prior assumptions by using historical references and context that highlighted an understanding that was previously unknown to you? From the introduction, he starts his analysis from the Revolution and moves forward... that isn't the entire history of the 2nd. The 1st, 2nd, and 4th are codifying rights that pre-exist and does not require the Constitution.

      More importantly, are the rights in the 1st and 4th amendment collective or individual? They all use the same language to describe an individual right that pre-exists the constitution. Does that mean the same limitations of guns can be applied to speech? Only "militia" err "media/press" can speak freely.

      If you haven't, I suggest reading the actual opinion instead of hearing about it from a partisan source.

    212. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Dred Scott, Korematsu, and Wickard v. Filburn are all court decisions that haven't been overturned. No one in their right mind would try citing Dred Scott or Korematsu to support their argument but Wickard v. Filburn, despite the nonsense of the argument made in the case, is still cited with regularity to support federal government regulation and continual erosion of the 10th Amendment.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    213. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Well, read the book before you dismiss it; I thought it gave an excellent overview of the politics of the time, including going into the English Common Law precedents, the idea that the founding fathers were terribly scared of the idea of a standing army, the horse trading and compromise that went into the Constitutional Convention, and so on. If the only reason you consider him 'partisan' is for having a political affiliation, I'd hate to hear about what you think of Scalia.....

      Like it or not, most of modern American constitutional law has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Commerce Clause is used in ridiculous ways. It's widely accepted that 'Congress shall make no law' actually means 'Congress, the Executive Branch, the States, and so on, shall make no law....'

      The simple fact of the matter is that the US Constitution needs an overhaul to take into account lessons learned in the last 250 years, in the exact same way that State constitutions are routinely overhauled.

      And you're right, for some reason I kept typing '1998' instead of '2008,' so all of my opinions are meaningless, and Sarah Palin now gets to be president.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    214. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one guaranteed it, neither did they say it would be automatic, the 2nd gives you a fighting chance, the choice to bear arms is yours.... But yes in general bearing arms against the government is a losing proposition a la Waco

    215. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But, what if you make the gun, use it for 20 years, give it to your son, and he sells it?"

      Then it will be like millions of other guns in the US for which there are no records. Plus, even cities like Chiraq don't actually prosecute gun law violations by gangbangers, though they whine constantly that more such laws are needed because...statism.

    216. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

    217. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's talking about nuclear weapons?

      State secrets !=! Nuclear weapons.

      You seriously need to go back to school and learn how to parse sentences correctly.

    218. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are replying to a guy who lets his 16 year old daughter carry around a gun so she doesn't get "raped by thugs".

      You are talking to a person who lets his 8 year old son target practice.

      He is possibly the dumbest person on slashdot. Facts.

    219. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. But it will work just like marijuana does. If you are in the state then locally you are fine. But the feds can still come in and arrest you for violating federal laws.

    220. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I hear some thugs raping someone you know, better grab the strap.

    221. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because those people don't have any money to extract from them.

    222. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      You need to understand what the case really is about. The way it's discussed in the media, it sounds like Department of State had some kind of prohibition on 3D-printed gun schematics, and the Trump admin removed it. But that's not the case.

      The reason why distribution of those files were previously limited, is because Defense Distributed was distributing them to *everyone* on their website. Including people who are not US residents. At that point, it becomes export, and international treaties apply - and, in particular, ITAR.

      ITAR is a treaty that regulates export of defense and military technology. The way US implements it, it maintains a list of things that are regulated; this includes firearms, but also "technical data" pertaining to other categories. It has long been held that controlling exports and imports is a legitimate government function that does not infringe on fundamental rights, although to what extent this works when 1A is in the picture is still an open case. Either way, DoS, which is in charge of maintaining the munitions list, decided that DD schematics fall into the "technical data" category.

      However, for ITAR to apply, the technical data in question must be of defensive or military value. DD, in challenging DoS classification in court, has argued that technical data for manufacturing a single-shot .380 handgun do not have any such value - and it's hard to disagree with them (you're welcome to try to find any military, even irregular, anywhere in the world, that arms itself with such a firearm). The case has been going on for a long time now, but under Trump, the administration decided to settle it - they didn't quite drop the case outright, but instead came up with guidelines as to which firearms would and wouldn't be considered "military", and nothing that DD distributes falls in that category. DD agreed to that settlement.

    223. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that detailed explanation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    224. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      That makes it new technology, not new territory. The 'territory' in question involves whether you can legally manufacture your own guns or not - and that has been settled.

      Whether you use a drill press, or a numerically controlled mill, or a 3-D printer is immaterial - the effort required on your part to build it does not dictate whether or not you should have that right .

    225. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There are fewer than 10,000 firearm homicides in the U.S. annually.

      A person's most fundamental right is the ownership of his own life. Inherent in that is the right to do with his life whatever he wishes, so long as it does not violate someone else's rights. The ownership of your own life implies the right to end your own life. Objecting to that, as you seem to be doing, is naked evil.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    226. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      If they had started firing, the feds would have lost hard.

      Instead, the feds didn't fire (apart from the one idiot who tried to pull a gun while resisting arrest) and won.

      TBH I'm not entirely sure what the point is here. The Hammonds didn't even want the Bundys to get involved. Perhaps the moral of the story is that sure, you might have guns, but so does everyone else, including people who very strongly disagree with you.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    227. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Whether you use a drill press, or a numerically controlled mill, or a 3-D printer is immaterial - the effort required on your part to build it does not dictate whether or not you should have that right .

      Interesting that you say that, because I have the opposite opinion when it comes to, say, surveillance or warfare.

      The police used to be able to track your car by having someone follow it. Now, they could use data pulled from security cameras. The amount of effort and expense required to keep track of you was, I think, a check on the use of that law enforcement tool. The same goes for companies that sell your data. They used to be limited by the amount they could economically collect.

      Similarly, the fact that your people could get killed or injured was a check on the use of warfare. The use of drones changed the balance.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    228. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If they had started firing, the feds would have lost hard.

      Not for long. There are always more feds.

      "We're gonna need some more FBI guys, I guess."

    229. Re: Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The states are in fact limited. States only have the right to pass laws that do not interfere with federal or constitutional law, just like the federal government can't pass a law that goes against the Constitution.

      As was being mentioned with marijuana, marijuana is actually illegal EVERYWHERE in the United States. This has been proven very evident when Bush Jr. legally used the DEA to kick down and raid medical dispensaries in California in the early 2000s.

      The more terrifying thing to me than people not realizing that the Constitution has to be respected by all states is the knowledge that there are considerable amounts of people that actually want to override it.

      What I don't understand about the modern left (being centrist myself) is the reaction to Trump's actions are absolutely counterproductive. Trump's attacks on the media, wanting to deport Muslims, and attempts to silence critics are all attacks on the first amendment. The modern left's response is to attack the first amendment themselves with file/tech laws, hate speech laws, etc.

      If you want to stop racism in America you're going to need large amounts if free speech rights available. People may slowly get mental health treatment, Alzheimer's treatment, etc, but they'll have to seek out that medical treatment without fear of being locked up for saying what is happening in their minds in an unsatisfactory way. Black Americans talking to KKK members (which is happening) to show them they are wrong requires free speech rights to heal divides.

      The modern left is a dually just as regressive and uncivil as the modern right.

      Now as for the DefDist files, I'm not sure why anyone who has used the internet at all thinks that stopping files from being distributed in any way is remotely accomplishable. Taking a file, especially a controvetsial one, off the internet is like taking pee out of a swimming pool.

    230. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      Then it sounds like a First Amendment issue, not Second.

      Those of us who remember (or read about) the "crypto wars" of the last century know that sufficiently strong encryption was considered a "munition". Then somebody printed the code into a book, and it became a First Amendment issue.

      Ta da!

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    231. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, I'm curious what definition of "winning" means "ending with all of our side dead or in jail."r

    232. Re:Another judge legislating from the bench by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I am literally describing current SCOTUS precedent, don't be a dunce. Don't repeat nonsense you heard on your newsvertainment, look up the fucking ruling and read the damn opinion.

  2. DUMB! by Zorro · · Score: 4, Informative

    You can make a shotgun out of two pieces of pipe and a nail.

    1. Re:DUMB! by ArchieBunker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're an idiot. The barrel is metal and so is the bullet, along with springs and other items. What is stopping me from making the same device with a lathe and mill?

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    2. Re:DUMB! by andydread · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if you get the gun through the metal detectors how are you going to use it if you can't get the bullets through metal detectors? Do you know anything at all about how guns work?

    3. Re:DUMB! by Freischutz · · Score: 0

      You can make a shotgun out of two pieces of pipe and a nail.

      We talked about it and unanimously decided to appoint you to test-fire it.

    4. Re:DUMB! by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Historically in Europe many small villages, especially in the mountains, had wooden cannons. Big ones. Made from a log.

      Of course it "blows up" when you fire it, but don't think that stops the shot from going out the end at a high velocity! It just means, run fast after lighting the fuse, or if equipped with a percussive hammer, fire it with a long string!

      Reading comprehension doesn't help unless you also read a lot. ;)

    5. Re:DUMB! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You were never a teenager?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:DUMB! by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Informative

      All jokes aside, he's not wrong. Shotguns are relatively low-pressure firearms and the type of gun he's talking about (a slam-fire shotgun) has been made in third-world countries quite frequently. In general, despite being rather limited (single shot, difficult to aim, etc), they most certainly do work. And with only a little machine tooling knowledge and small lathe you can make something significantly more capable.

      Guns are machines - relatively simple ones at that. People were making them hundreds of years ago before they even had power tools. No matter how much you wish they didn't exist you can't put that genie back in the bottle.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    7. Re:DUMB! by Aighearach · · Score: 0

      You seem to misunderstand the intent. Maybe because you've been watching too much Fox News, and they weren't honest with you about the purpose of these efforts?

      The goal isn't to keep people from having arms, or to keep them from making their own. See how easy that is? Now everything makes sense! They're only trying to make it hard enough that you're doing it because you cared, not just because you were angry and wanted to hurt people. That doesn't solve all problems, but it doesn't try to either.

    8. Re:DUMB! by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 0

      You're the idiot. There is no metal in this gun
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Again, something wrong with your reading comprehension as well?

      U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik issued a temporary restraining order Tuesday to stop the release of blueprints to make untraceable and undetectable 3D-printed plastic guns

      Ammunition is a problem at the moment, but diligent minds are at work. It won't be long until someone comes up with a material and design that is sturdy enough.

    9. Re:DUMB! by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      They are called boomsticks. I saw a historical documentary about their invention when Lord Arthur found the Hero A. Williams.

    10. Re:DUMB! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The liberator has a metal firing pin

      https://www.cnet.com/news/the-3d-printed-gun-controversy-everything-you-need-to-know/

    11. Re:DUMB! by andydread · · Score: 1

      I couldn't find anything on such a device that allows you to get bullets through metal detectors.

    12. Re:DUMB! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, you're the fucking idiot. There absolutely is metal in the Liberator. See https://techcrunch.com/2013/05/06/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-liberator-3d-printed-pistol/

    13. Re:DUMB! by x0ra · · Score: 1

      Slam fire shotgun made with sched 40 black pipe are perfectly safe. The powder load is pretty low and the bore does not offer much restriction.

    14. Re:DUMB! by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      Yes, dimwit, so there is a gun that has metal in it so that it can be legal. This doesn't mean you can't 3D print illegal, working plastic guns without the metal component. Jesus, you really made me spell it out for you..

    15. Re:DUMB! by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Bullets can be made of anything. The only requirement is gunpowder.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    16. Re:DUMB! by andydread · · Score: 1

      not sure you are aware of pressures involved in getting a bullet to function properly

    17. Re:DUMB! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what if you used carbon fiber or diamond

    18. Re:DUMB! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Also you would be using METAL pipes for that.

      There are thousands of books on gun smithing. If you want a plastic gun, you can replace plastic for metal in any of the designs and end up with a plastic gun that is sturdier and more reliable than any 3D printed gun.

    19. Re:DUMB! by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      Yes, dimwit, so there is a gun that has metal in it so that it can be legal. This doesn't mean you can't 3D print illegal, working plastic guns without the metal component.

      Just like you can make an all plastic gun on a lathe, using existing, published plans. And making a plastic gun by subtractive methods is going to be a hell of a lot better than making one by additive methods.

    20. Re:DUMB! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were never a teenager?

      Sure, I was a teenager once, but I wasn't ever dumb enough to stick a cartridge into a water pipe and set it off with a hammer and a nail.

    21. Re:DUMB! by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      If you load a shotgun shell with gravel instead of buckshot, it will be only slightly less lethal. The metal base on a shotgun shell is metal for convenience of assembly, not necessity. Instead of the cap, you can use an "unsafe" match head.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    22. Re:DUMB! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      woosh.

      It was in reply to your query "do you know anything at all about how guns work". The "historical documentary" he mentions is the third evil dead movie.

      That is the level of knowledge claimed. That is, none

    23. Re:DUMB! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Not a water pipe, a black steel (gas) pipe.

      Paraphrasing your answer...you were too dumb to build a safe zip gun, despite the knowledge being readily available.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  3. The Ninth Circus Strikes Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many of these clowns are there....

    1. Re:The Ninth Circus Strikes Again by bobbied · · Score: 3, Informative

      29 apparently.. But not all of them are routinely overturned so not all have the red nose and floppy shoes.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  4. Well . . . by hduff · · Score: 0

    Not if Defense Distributed was a major campaign donor.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  5. I STILL don't get it. by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What grounds are there for stopping this information from being published? I mean, you need complicated machines and a lot of knowledge to actually use it don't you? If you have that much knowledge how hard can it be to come up with the plans yourself? Even so, I can find information on how to build bombs a plenty, destroy sensitive infrastructure , avoid surveillance ,and kill people with various types of poisons and weapons, some of which I can outright buy on the internet.
    So WHAT is danger is this preventing , other then making those lobbing for gun restrictions looks like loonies? I mean , there must be 5000 better ways to protect people from Gun violence, why spend your time and resources? What is the gain?

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    1. Re:I STILL don't get it. by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Judges and politicians are old and have no clue how the internet works much less 3d printers. This is like saying blueprints of firearms are illegal.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    2. Re:I STILL don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the point is that they don't require complicated machines or a lot of knowledge to use, just a 3d printer.

      That said, I agree that it is mostly security theater and on par with an attempt to block distribution of the Anarchist Cookbook.

    3. Re:I STILL don't get it. by lgw · · Score: 1

      I think the point is that they don't require complicated machines or a lot of knowledge to use, just a 3d printer.

      Aren't these CAD/CAM files for a milling machine? 3D printed plastic guns are just going to blow up in your hand - you're better off with a "zip gun" that's at least improvised from metal parts (and a Hell of a lot cheaper than a 3D printer!).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:I STILL don't get it. by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What grounds are there for stopping this information from being published?

      It's really simple. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - "The printing press was revolution, the printed gun will cause one!"

      Statist nations are going to state.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re: I STILL don't get it. by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

      OK a 3d printer IS a complicated machine. Much more than my cell phone. Maybe 3D printers are easier to use to be, anyone able to use one is capable of reading this article and doing what they want with it.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

      --
      âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
    6. Re:I STILL don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does scream theater. There are countless guides for radicals to weaponize themselves, including guns. This is a spotlight case getting a spotlight response - a pair which tends to be riddled with contradiction, fallacy, inconsistency, you name it.

      It's why people open twitter when they want customer support. It won't convince me to use socnets, but the spotlight effect is real and can be exploited for your agenda.

      Even if the proposal belongs to "the Trump administration" I have to side with them. You don't uninvent things to prevent citizens from weaponizing themselves (ie something unpreventable to begin with). I don't care for most of the soundbites that gun nuts squawk, but at least they realize that commoners have access to means of mass harm, and no amount of legislation or censorship will change that bullet point.

      Ha. Get it?

    7. Re:I STILL don't get it. by EvilSS · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The original case was based on ITARS (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) and the fact that the US Gov didn't feel that a domestic website could prevent any exfiltration of the files outside the US. There is nothing illegal about the files, it's international distribution (or the possibility of it) that is at the core of this. Personally I think it's stupid and that all the hand wringing is creating a Streisand effect around it more dangerous than if they had just let it be in the first place.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    8. Re:I STILL don't get it. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      No, they're for 3d printers, but yes, any wholly plastic gun is just going to blow up. Most of these are just plans to print a receiver that you still attach a shit-ton of metal parts to (not the least of which is the barrel) to actually work. And even then "work" is relative.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    9. Re: I STILL don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The grounds are the judge hates Trump. There are no other grounds.

    10. Re:I STILL don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What grounds are there for stopping this information from being published? ...

      "Progressives" don't like it.

      Remember that at the ballot box.

      Trump might be an utter asshole, but he isn't literally out to take away your rights.

      No, he's NOT.

      But "progressives" ARE. You can add "hate speech" laws to the things "progressives" want to do to take away your rights.

      NO, you arrogant "progressive" fuckers DON'T know what's best for everyone else!

    11. Re:I STILL don't get it. by burtosis · · Score: 1

      While not easily detected plastic firearms are one point being debated, another more serious one (in my opinion) is not being debated as much - 3-D printing the receiver for untraceable firearms. The receiver has the serial number and is legally the firearm under US law, kind of like a car frame and VIN, or an iPhone and the logic board. Printing the receiver lets you have an all metal gun and with either few to no additional parts for extra strength, an untraceableand yet fully functional firearm able to circumvent half the laws out there.

    12. Re:I STILL don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sudden prevalence of guns is more likely to cause a civil war than a revolution. Revolutions occur when a ruling class loses the confidence of enough of the population that they have no choice but to accept removal from power. Civil wars happen when enough people have lost confidence in the ruling class to take up arms, but when there aren't enough of them (or they lack the strength) to force the ruling class' removal. Judging by your post, this certainly sounds like it's making more people *think* they can start a revolution. But the difference between a civil war and a revolution is outcome.

    13. Re:I STILL don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until someone makes and sells bullets with barrels already on them.

      But yes who cares. I'm legally allows to build my own gun. I can spend $50 bucks and buy a saturday night special at the store. Who cares if there are cheap guns that are garbage out there.

      It is already illegal to have them without enough metal on them for a metal detector to not detect.

      This entire argument is a waste of tax payers money.

    14. Re:I STILL don't get it. by Alypius · · Score: 1

      Making your own firearm does not require a serial number or registration per the BATFE. You can buy an 80% receiver and a jig, drill the remaining holes, and enjoy your new 100% receiver.

    15. Re:I STILL don't get it. by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      The difference between any war is outcome. It doesn't really matter how it starts, or why. What matter is how it ends and whom is in control; and rarely does it end well. That's for sure.

      So before anyone wants to pull that trigger and go down that road, you'd better be desperate as a nation could be jumping from the frying pan and into the fire.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    16. Re:I STILL don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That information on bombs and stuff. That's next. You didn't think they would stop here, did you?

    17. Re:I STILL don't get it. by burtosis · · Score: 1

      This is just about 3-D printing a 100% receiver easily, drilling holes with a drill press or by hand would be harder. The main point being you actually have a functioning weapon, whereas the 3-D printed guns without a metal barrel I've seen are dangerous toys that don't have much velocity or accuracy and are almost as likely to injure the shooter as anyone else. That's why I think the receiver issue would be at least as important as the zip gun issue if you are talking about "making" firearms that actually are effective.

    18. Re:I STILL don't get it. by lgw · · Score: 1

      You can already mill your own receiver, or make one from a shovel, or make one from aluminum cans (the best kind of recycling!). And it's already very illegal to sell them. But there's no Constitution basis to prevent someone from making his own gun.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re: I STILL don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump might be an utter asshole, but he isn't literally out to take away your rights.

      Is that why he rants and raves about football players not kowtowing to the national anthem? Is that why he claims he should have the right to do whatever he wants and nobody looks at his actions? Is that why he won't protect my right to vote?

    20. Re:I STILL don't get it. by x0ra · · Score: 1

      the files are already available, you just need to know how to look.

    21. Re:I STILL don't get it. by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      A 3D printed gun against tanks, aircraft, machine guns and a state willing to use them against their people is not going to be a win for the 3D printed gun group. They'll criminalize possession of the 3D printer, the ammunition, hell even the gun powder.

      The whole stupid idea that a bunch of citizens with guns could stop a national army is stupid propaganda from the NRA. They can't and history is replete with examples even dating back to when the army had the same weapons as the lay person.

    22. Re: I STILL don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that why he won't protect my right to vote?

      Are you an illegal alien? Maybe that's why.

    23. Re:I STILL don't get it. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Judges and politicians are old and have no clue how the internet works much less 3d printers. This is like saying blueprints of firearms are illegal.

      What this is really about is protecting authoritarian foreign governments from their own people. These foreign governments have applied political and diplomatic pressure as well as "contributed" large sums of money to US politicians to prevent the distribution of such information that those wishing to free themselves from oppression could use to gain their liberty.

      As to posters here who ridiculed the idea that rebels with a one-shot single-use gun could beat those armed with normal guns, it's quite simple. You're right. By itself, it can't. You use such a weapon to sneak up and shoot a government soldier/guard/etc (like those guarding a government armory) and take *their* weapon and drop the 3D-printed plastic gun. Rinse and repeat as needed.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    24. Re: I STILL don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump probably would try to claim I was, remember he has a history of lies on that subject.

    25. Re:I STILL don't get it. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    26. Re:I STILL don't get it. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Afghanistan and Vietnam would like to remind you of what happens when a superpower tries to control them...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    27. Re:I STILL don't get it. by Alypius · · Score: 1

      True; I see the Vindicator as more of a proof-of-concept instead of something I would actually use, which is why I see this more of a 1A issue than 2A right now. Codeisfreespeech.com has the plans as well as a "photo" of the code, just like people did with the whole CSS/DMCA thing back in the day. I have no doubt that, eventually, 3D filament will be strong enough for firearms so I think it's important to safeguard that day against the people who are essentially calling to burn books.

    28. Re:I STILL don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would the states have standing Re: ITAR, when FED has determined they can be released?

    29. Re:I STILL don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right after I read this story I went to my library's website and downloaded 4 e-books on gunsmithing. All totally legal, totally free, readily available!

    30. Re:I STILL don't get it. by burtosis · · Score: 1

      There seem to be more 1st amendment issues than in at least the last 40 years, I wouldn't let any backsliding take place because any freedoms lost are likely gone forever. Eventually 3-D metal sintering will be cheap enough for hobbiest units, the responsibility should be with the person printing because it will be a never ending battle trying to outlaw "forbidden shapes" in general.

    31. Re:I STILL don't get it. by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Why would the states have standing Re: ITAR, when FED has determined they can be released?

      No clue. I've been asking the same thing.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    32. Re:I STILL don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, wholly plastic guns are not (necessarily) just going to blow up. A little bit of searching will turn up some "brave" idiots who have tested this hypothesis. A printed plastic gun can manage at least one shot and, if the round is low enough pressure, more can be attempted.

      Now, firing a high pressure round is... exceptionally brave.

    33. Re:I STILL don't get it. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      > Statist states are going to state.

      ftfy

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    34. Re:I STILL don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The states don't have any standing, they just keep shopping around for judges who want to make a name for themselves by legislating from the bench. If/when this reaches the supreme court, then there will be a proper precedent for a releasing/publishing a bunch of other things. The gun control advocate's best hope is to stall long enough, hope Thomas kicks the bucket before Ginsburg or Breyer, and praythat a non-Southern Democrat takes the presidency back.

      I personally hope Kagan goes first and Trump gets another appointment....not that I like Trump that much but it is funny as hell to watch people try to shoot holes in someone like Gorsuch. Actually, it would be hilarious if Kagan died and Trump nominated Garland.

  6. Muh muh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all those who were asleep in high school or just dumb enough and need blueprints.
    You should have enough knowledge to do a cannon or a howizer in under 1 hour.
    Making a fun requires basic understanding of materials and mechanics, it is not complicated.

    1. Re:Muh muh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good advice. Don't bother reading the later, metal fatigue parts. Egghead bullshit. Just get to launching bowling balls.

      Also: You can make an amazing cleaning fluid at home, just mix bleach and ammonia. 'They' don't want you to know about it. Get big bottles, you're going to want a lot of it.

    2. Re:Muh muh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can make an amazing cleaning fluid at home, just mix bleach and ammonia.

      The green gas lets you know it's really working - if it's green, it's clean!

  7. Too late by callahan2211 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The code is already out there. Ultimately, the SCOTUS will rule that code is free speech.

    --
    "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and
    1. Re:Too late by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, the SCOTUS will rule that code is free speech.

      Next time you're visiting the future in the time machine, bring back the sports page!

    2. Re:Too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That doesn't work. For some reason the bets feed back into the sports results. Boo.

  8. Oh c'mon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it needlessly endangered our children, our loved ones and our men and women in law enforcement.

    I would so much rather a criminal attempt a public shooting with a flimsy piece of shit that's as likely to explode in his hand as it is to hurt someone else than with a rifle with a modified lower receiver. These stupid trinkets are not an issue, actual firearms are easier and cheaper to obtain than a damn 3D printer. Priorities, people.

    1. Re: Oh c'mon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you looking at the law and capability being limited to to 3d printers of today or what the technical capability of printing structurally rigid 3d objects from commercial devices will be in a few years? Then the motivated/imaginative criminal/terrorist has more options.

    2. Re:Oh c'mon by gravewax · · Score: 1

      personally I think the bigger issue is the moron kids that will think it is cool and make one, the inevitable blowing up in your face problem rather than the mass shootings.

    3. Re: Oh c'mon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Darwinism at work. Don't complain about it's effectiveness. All that horseshit coddling that's been going on for the past thirty years has kept us from thinning the crybullies and progressives from the herd.

    4. Re:Oh c'mon by pots · · Score: 1

      This is the same argument people used to use with bump stocks, only it's an even weaker argument here. Bump stocks were and are a largely mature technology, 3D printing is still ramping up. Whether it's true or not that 3D printed guns are currently nonthreatening, they will be eventually.

    5. Re: Oh c'mon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am all for Darwinism, but kids do stupid shit, even seemingly intelligent ones. Looking back on my childhood I am probably lucky to be alive given some of the dumbass shit we did as we did not know enough to realise the risks. IT is a parents jobs to shield a child from the most dangerous of stuff till they are at least at an age when they should know better, then let Darwinism take its toll.

    6. Re:Oh c'mon by blindseer · · Score: 2

      I would so much rather a criminal attempt a public shooting with a flimsy piece of shit that's as likely to explode in his hand as it is to hurt someone else than with a rifle with a modified lower receiver. These stupid trinkets are not an issue, actual firearms are easier and cheaper to obtain than a damn 3D printer. Priorities, people.

      The people trying to block this are fully aware of their priorities. This is not about a plastic gun that will likely fail after the first shot. This is about people making firearms at home without serial numbers. This technology is one small step from people mass producing firearms with machines and tooling that cost less than some people spend on a TV set.

      I can already see people making a working metal firearm with a common 3D printer. It's called investment casting:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The printer doesn't print the part, it prints something from which a mold can be made. If done properly the mold can be reused many times. Even a method that involves destroying the mold every time, required for complex shapes, won't slow someone down that can simply print a shape from which the mold is made. Soft metals like aluminum and brass can be melted with pretty simple backyard forges. Something that can melt steel is perhaps moderately more complex.

      The focus has been on the plastic guns but the lawsuit is also over plans that are used to program a small CNC mill to produce firearm receivers, milled from blocks of common aluminum. The kind of aluminum used to make beer cans.

      Given all the overhead in producing a legal firearm today it is quite possible that very soon it may be cheaper to assemble your own from parts made yourself than to buy one that's been mass produced. That's what concerns these people behind this lawsuit.

      I have a question, how many beer cans would someone have to melt down to make an AR-15? I'm asking for a friend.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:Oh c'mon by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 1

      I have a question, how many beer cans would someone have to melt down to make an AR-15? I'm asking for a friend.

      Soda cans and it's just a lower receiver, but close enough:
      https://youtu.be/on1d9Bz34bU

    8. Re:Oh c'mon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pabst Blue Ribbon is not a soda and it was 265 cans.

    9. Re:Oh c'mon by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Soft metals like aluminum and brass can be melted with pretty simple backyard forges. Something that can melt steel is perhaps moderately more complex.

      Not really. You can buy a Fresnel lens by mail order than can melt steel quite handily. Or in the case of the video, pull one out of an old rear projection TV. You can make cast steel in a backyard forge for $0 in fuel cost. It only requires a sunny afternoon. And a respirator.

  9. Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    preliminary injunction continuing a prohibition on the Trump administration proposal to make available blueprints for so-called ghost guns, untraceable weapons

    The Trump administration makes no such proposal to make available blueprints for so-called ghost guns.

    Defense distributed plans to do this all on their own; The administration simply acknowledges the rule of law that
    under the constitution that congress is not allowed to have a prior restraint on the release to 1st amendment Free Speech rights;
    that is, the US government has no lawful authority to interfere with Defense Distributed publishing plans.

    The same is true of the states as well; the mere fact that they found a judge to issue an unlawful order restraining the
    publication does not mean that it is the Trump Administration's preference that DD release their plans, let-alone a proposal.

    1. Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by stevegee58 · · Score: 2

      It might seem obvious to most that written content on a website is protected free speech. Others make the argument that it's the same thing as yelling "fire!" in a movie theater and not protected free speech.

    2. Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      under the constitution that congress is not allowed to have a prior restraint on the release to 1st amendment Free Speech rights;

      Not true - prior restraint in the USA is allowed in some very rare circumstances.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      None of those circumstances apply to this case. Details blueprints, schematics & instructions to manufacture ordinary small arms have been published & widely available for a very long time.

    3. Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yelling fire in a theater is legal.

      Choosing to yell fire with the intent to cause panic is not.

      For the case to work, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defense Distributed created and distributed their information intentionally to cause clear and present harm. Given that one would have to go to their website to acquire the files, that intent is inherently absent.

      This whole case is a farce of justice, civil rights, and economic effectiveness in law enforcement.

    4. Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by Tailhook · · Score: 0

      None of those circumstances apply to this case.

      Yeah, whatever. California said the children are endangered and California knows best for everyone so it must be thus.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    5. Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by mentil · · Score: 1

      Note the tortured wording to try to lay responsibility directly at the feet of Trump. He's become the nation's whipping boy, apparently.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    6. Re: Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Trump administration acknowledging the rule of law?

      Please, they make up the law as it suits them, and they can't even take responsibility for their own choices.

      I'm sure they decided to just forget about all of this and move on to telling lies about negotiations with Mexico and North Korea while claiming they saved money on the Battleship Potemkin.

      You may not realize this, but the inability of conservatives to acknowledge any of the egregious malfeasances of the Trump presidency means there is a recognition that claims they are doing the right thing tend to be less believable.

      Doesn't help with all the manufactured upset they previously tried to use, but completely failed to find anything really actionable.

    7. Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Choosing to yell fire with the intent to cause panic is not [legal].

      Lest we forget... that conclusion is based on a single poor ruling the Supreme Court made only under duress, whose real purpose was to justify the suppression of political speech opposing the draft, an obvious violation of the First Amendment. The ruling was wrong with respect to speech against the draft, and it was equally wrong with respect to the analogy about falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The only ones justly responsible for any harm caused by panicked people trampling others in their attempt to exit the theater are the ones who panicked. If they had not lost control of themselves then the incident would have ended with nothing worse than some wasted time—enough to get the instigator banned from the theater by its management, perhaps, but nothing more.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    8. Re: Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by blindseer · · Score: 1

      The Trump administration acknowledging the rule of law?

      Please, they make up the law as it suits them, and they can't even take responsibility for their own choices.

      That's what happens when you have a Congress that creates such a large executive branch with so many rule making departments.

      It's only now that they don't have one of their own in the White House that congresscritters are getting so upset. Here's an idea, roll back some of the executive powers and Trump can't do so much damage. He'd likely still be a bull in a china shop but the shop would be much smaller with less china to smash.

      Here's another idea, roll back some of the federal authority and leave more to the states. Seems like whenever gun control comes up we have congresscritters shouting for "states rights", that is until some state removes limits on gun ownership and then the petty tyrants in Congress just get short circuits in the brain.

      Congress seems to be fine with a tyrannical president, that is until the "tyranny" brings down unemployment and raises wages. That they cannot tolerate, as it exposes the lie that only Congress can fix things.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    9. Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Others make the argument that it's the same thing as yelling "fire!" in a movie theater

      and not protected free speech.

      ALL speech is protected speech. The first amendment doesn't say "shall not abridge ..... EXCEPT (something)"

            Yelling "Fire" in a theatre is not protected because yelling ANY WORD in a theatre is not allowed -- the restriction is not one regarding
      the content of a message --- The word "Fire" in particular is not restricted, but the act of yelling a word or signal in general falsely suggesting danger with the intended purpose of inciting fear or panic can be a crime. There is no basis for comparison between that situation and publishing plans on the internet

      Because 3D plans are routinely published on internet websites -- the medium is designed for it; they're not out of place in any way, and the distribution of plans on the internet does not create any kind of civil disturbance or disruption interfering with anyone.

    10. Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by blindseer · · Score: 2

      preliminary injunction continuing a prohibition on the Trump administration proposal to make available blueprints for so-called ghost guns, untraceable weapons

      The Trump administration makes no such proposal to make available blueprints for so-called ghost guns.

      The term "ghost gun" gets tossed about so much that it's definition seems to keep changing, much like "net neutrality" and "assault weapon". I've seen "ghost gun" defined as a firearm lacking a serial number that can be traced back to who made it, who bought it, and the when and where that happened. By this definition a 3D printed gun is a "ghost gun" because they were not made by a licensed manufacturer that keeps records of their manufacture and sale for review by government regulators.

      California wanted to pass a law that required every firearm made in the state, including those made at home by private citizens for their own use, to have a serial number and be registered with the state government. This "ghost gun ban" is going to fail because the criminals that want a gun will simply make them without the permission of the state government.

      There is no stopping these untraceable "ghost guns". Right now the 3D plans that Defense Distributed wants to publish are near worthless for producing anything that would be considered a durable, reliable, and accurate weapon. The guy that runs the company, Cody Wilson, knows this. He merely sees this as a proof on concept and is fighting this court case to set a precedent for the future. He's making money selling milling machines that can turn a block of aluminum into a receiver for a rifle or handgun. If he wins this case then he can sell more mills. He's called himself an "anarcho-capitalist" and believes that the government needs to stay out of business as much as possible. That includes allowing people to make money selling small arms.

      I've seen this guy on Youtube doing interviews and he comes off as foul mouthed and just smart enough to make trouble for the government but stay out of prison while doing it. I don't know if that makes him a genius or a fool but I wish him all the success he can muster.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    11. Re: Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what happens when you have a Congress that creates such a large executive branch with so many rule making departments.

      Nope. That's what happens when you have a craven fraud who engages in braggadocio, a man who is all hate and no cattle. It is about Trump's own character, nothing more.

      It's only now that they don't have one of their own in the White House that congresscritters are getting so upset.

      Upset? Not the majority, no, they literally don't care what he does, and more than a few are cheering it along.

      Here's an idea, roll back some of the executive powers and Trump can't do so much damage. He'd likely still be a bull in a china shop but the shop would be much smaller with less china to smash.

      Here's a better idea, don't let a raging bullshitter have free rein to literally stomp all over the place. Or better yet, don't gleefully embrace the idea of a stampede of cattle just because you are so hateful towards your enemies that you praise the efforts.

      Here's another idea, roll back some of the federal authority and leave more to the states.

      I'm familiar with the government of my state. It is quite too incompetent to be trusted with anything. Same with the counties and cities. Sorry, your solution is worse.

      Seems like whenever gun control comes up we have congresscritters shouting for "states rights", that is until some state removes limits on gun ownership and then the petty tyrants in Congress just get short circuits in the brain.

      You forget, they aren't doing it for guns now. Marijuana, Net Neutrality, Same-Sex marriages, yes, but not guns. Sorry, your knowledge of contemporary politics is lacking.

      Congress seems to be fine with a tyrannical president, that is until the "tyranny" brings down unemployment and raises wages. That they cannot tolerate, as it exposes the lie that only Congress can fix things.

      What are you blathering about now? Congress is well-established as being perceived as moribund and incompetent.

      Oddly, it is interesting how suddenly certain people are clamoring that the President is suddenly increasing employment and wages after spending the few years denying that it was happening and declaring that the President didn't do such a thing even when they did admit it.

      Quite partisan of those people. It is like they change their tune based on the affiliation involved.

      Too bad the faults in the Trumpian behavior are becoming more and more evident. He couldn't even stand keeping flags at half-mast, and his recent efforts in military affairs are even more embarrassing.

      Especially his parade. Remember that?

    12. Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      Trump should be against ghost guns. Hasn't he seen "In the Line of Fire"?

    13. Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the rabid leftists couldn't make a story about this if they couldn't somehow blame Trump.

    14. Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by mentil · · Score: 1

      The real lesson from that movie is to ban rabbits' feet.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    15. Re: Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an idea, roll back some of the executive powers and Trump can't do so much damage. He'd likely still be a bull in a china shop but the shop would be much smaller with less china to smash.

      Here's a better idea, don't let a raging bullshitter have free rein to literally stomp all over the place. Or better yet, don't gleefully embrace the idea of a stampede of cattle just because you are so hateful towards your enemies that you praise the efforts.

      How would you propose keeping a raging bullshitter from having free rein to literally stomp all over the place? Could that be prevented by rolling back some of the powers of the executive?

      You apparently didn't think this through.

      Here's another idea, roll back some of the federal authority and leave more to the states.

      I'm familiar with the government of my state. It is quite too incompetent to be trusted with anything. Same with the counties and cities. Sorry, your solution is worse.

      I think it would work fine in my state because I voted for good governance. How did your state get to be run by incompetent idiots?

      Seems like whenever gun control comes up we have congresscritters shouting for "states rights", that is until some state removes limits on gun ownership and then the petty tyrants in Congress just get short circuits in the brain.

      You forget, they aren't doing it for guns now. Marijuana, Net Neutrality, Same-Sex marriages, yes, but not guns. Sorry, your knowledge of contemporary politics is lacking.

      And your Trump derangement syndrome is showing.

      Congress seems to be fine with a tyrannical president, that is until the "tyranny" brings down unemployment and raises wages. That they cannot tolerate, as it exposes the lie that only Congress can fix things.

      What are you blathering about now? Congress is well-established as being perceived as moribund and incompetent.

      I'm quite certain Congress perceives itself as perfectly competent to fix everything. They can only have this lie exposed to them if there is a POTUS that isn't just a party puppet.

    16. Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only about 35% of the populus and getting less and less every day with their bullshit.

    17. Re: Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would you propose keeping a raging bullshitter from having free rein to literally stomp all over the place?

      First, I'd suggest not strapping yourself to him as you gleefully endorse the very idea of him pooping up the joint.

      Second, I'd suggest actually being willing to hold him accountable, rather than praise his incompetence.

      Thirdly, I'd suggest recognizing that stepping in poop means you need to wash it off.

      Basically, you need to be willing to keep the bullshitter in the corral, and not let yourself be tainted by his every act.

      Really, it all boils down to who you choose to be your banner-bearer, and letting a dotard like Trump be it?

      Speaks ill of yourself that you don't.

      Could that be prevented by rolling back some of the powers of the executive?

      Nope. Turns out not having power also lets a bullshitter have free reign. It's one of those things that many Conservatives pretend not to understand. The sword of their incompetence cuts both ways.

      You apparently didn't think this through.

      Don't worry, you can show your lack of thinking on your own. It's fine, the way you ascribe power as if it was useless or deplorable unless you have it in your hands to accomplish your own ends is demonstrating your hypocrisy enough.

      Here's another idea, roll back some of the federal authority and leave more to the states.

      I'm familiar with the government of my state. It is quite too incompetent to be trusted with anything. Same with the counties and cities. Sorry, your solution is worse.

      I think it would work fine in my state because I voted for good governance. How did your state get to be run by incompetent idiots?

      Highly partisan voters with an agenda that includes gleefully embracing the idea of a stampede of cattle because they are so hateful towards their enemies that they praise the efforts to cause a panic.

      Been that way for over a century. They literally did everything in their power to make it happen, and it's still the way of things.

      Seems like whenever gun control comes up we have congresscritters shouting for "states rights", that is until some state removes limits on gun ownership and then the petty tyrants in Congress just get short circuits in the brain.

      You forget, they aren't doing it for guns now. Marijuana, Net Neutrality, Same-Sex marriages, yes, but not guns. Sorry, your knowledge of contemporary politics is lacking.

      And your Trump derangement syndrome is showing.

      Nope, it's actually true. They're even still fighting over cakes, let alone marriage recognition. Guns? Guns they could care less about. They aren't even going to bring up Mexican gun cartels now that they can't blame Obama for it.

      I'm quite certain Congress perceives itself as perfectly competent to fix everything. They can only have this lie exposed to them if there is a POTUS that isn't just a party puppet.

      What does it matter what Congress perceives of itself as? Or portrays themselves, it matters not, others have have been laughing at them as a joke for decades. It's nothing new. And no, an incompetent buffoon of a president isn't exposing anything we didn't already know either. Nobody expected any of the Republicans in Congress to hold the president accountable since the 1970s, and even then, it was a grudging effort that they highly resisted.

      That they're going to spend the next few years kissing his rancid feet? Nobody should be surprised.

      Remember, Trump's the kind of guy who takes credit for the sun rising in the morning. And his party members praise the Dawn Bringer.

  10. "untraceable ghost guns" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean those pieces of melty plastic that will, with luck, allow you to shoot one bullet somewhat in the direction you intended before going gooey and useless? Those "untraceable ghost guns"?

    That bullet is still going to be a regular bullet packed with regular smokeless powder in a regular brass case with a regular primer. And in fact the striker is still metal. But hey, don't let that stand in the way of a good solid outrageous moral panic.

    I always wondered what the idea behind the entire endeavour was, until I decided the 3d printed gun guy and his company are basically the corporate equivalent of a forum troll. They certainly managed to rile up the politicians of those above 20 states. Good on them.

  11. The ignorant left..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    "The Trump Administration's actions were dangerous and incompetent"

    So are the thoughts of the left wing idiots for ignoring the real issue of ignoring people breaking the laws and mental health! Instead they want to blame an object for killings. Blame the person pulling the trigger, they control the gun and the outcome! Criminals don't care about laws! If someone wants to kill, they will do so no matter what using whatever they want!

  12. What a joke. by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    Politicians are such idiots, a bunch of Granny Smiths. All that data is out there available as torrents, etc. Everyone who wanted it now has it, anyone new who wants it can just download the info elsewhere.

  13. 3D-printed guns are useless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... in terms of making a decent firearm that is better that what anybody could put together at Home Depot.

    In terms of real make-at-home untraceable firearms, you need a CNC mill and an 80% lower. And you can order both, online, at a very reasonable price:

    https://www.wired.com/2015/06/...

    1. Re:3D-printed guns are useless... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      And as long as you don't sell, trade or give them away, the make at home model is as legal as any other firearm of the same type/features.

      Have fun America.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:3D-printed guns are useless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You actually can sell home made guns.

    3. Re:3D-printed guns are useless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you need a CNC mill and an 80% lower

      wtf would you need a cnc machine for? I can make a 12 gauge shotgun that will blow right through 3a body armor with a file and a vice.

    4. Re:3D-printed guns are useless... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Let alone a "lower". Sure, it speeds shit up, but really, designing and building an automatic firearm isn't hard. A programmable cnc machine just speeds up how quickly you can make them.

      The only reason I haven't made one is that UK law isn't terribly amenable to firearm manufacture

  14. It's not like these are the first open source guns by pecosdave · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The AK-47 is way ahead of these on the open-source fire arm bandwagon. The Trump administration is sticking with what the constitution says, this activist judge and all the me-too's from elsewhere are virtue-signaling their left wing stances.

    This is a combined 1st and 2nd amendment issue - shutting it down is violating both, I don't care what the laws of non-U.S. countries are. It's not our job to enforce the laws of other countries, if they don't want their people getting what's on U.S. servers it's their job to block their users, not ours.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  15. What you should be worried about.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the ruling: "...private defendants have a First Amendment right to disseminate the the CAD files. That right is currently abridged..."

    From the 1st Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

    Yet here we are.

    1. Re:What you should be worried about.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Democrats don't give a f*ck about freedom of speech, or the other constitutionally guaranteed liberties (freedom of association, protection of private property, freedom of religion). What they care about is enriching themselves and their robber baron cronies.

  16. Trump Admin's actions ARE dangerousand incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We! Are! Family! Get! Up! Every! Body! And! Sing! Child! Sing!

  17. Reminds me of the PGP and DeCSS case by CharlieG · · Score: 1

    This whole case so much reminds me of the PGP and DeCSS cases, and if printing them in books was protected speech or not.

    --
    -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
    1. Re:Reminds me of the PGP and DeCSS case by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      This whole case so much reminds me of the PGP and DeCSS cases, and if printing them in books was protected speech or not.

      I still have my "This T-Shirt is a Munition" shirt, with the machine-readable RSA algorithm barcodes on it.

  18. Re:It's not like these are the first open source g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Trump administration doesn't give a damn about the Constitution. You're talking about a would-be autocrat that works to undermine the courts and the free press.

    Idiots who call being a decent person "virtue signaling" are scoundrel-signaling.

  19. Re:It's not like these are the first open source g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care what the laws of non-U.S. countries are. It's not our job to enforce the laws of other countries

    Actually, in some cases US law requires the enforcement for foreign laws (even if those laws are ridiculous).

    The Lacey act governs some imports into the USA, and prohibits a number of things. It is also illegal under the Lacey act to import things into the USA in violation of any foreign law.

    An importer is obligated to not only know & comply with US laws, but all foreign laws that apply.

    And yes, the US has prosecuted people for exactly that.

    https://openscholarship.wustl....

    https://georgetownlawjournal.o...

  20. This will go the Supreme Court. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then the supreme court will rule in favor of the right to publish the plans. It'll be a 7-2 decision, with several people "shocked" that a couple of the liberal justices switched sides (primarily because this REALLY is a free speech issue, not a 2nd amendment issue).

    This is about the dumbest anti-gun stuff I've ever seen. Can't we at least just ban stupid stuff everyone at least agrees on is bad, like those auto-fire things they use to get around machine gun laws?

  21. Isn't that what we expected though? by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

    dangerous and incompetent.

    I didn't vote for Trump, but I certainly viewed him to be well described by those two words when he was running. While I agree with pretty well nothing he has done (especially as POTUS though generally throughout his life), if he embraced that as his next campaign slogan I would have to acknowledge "mission accomplished" for him.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  22. Plans will be released anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those who already have the plans will be releasing them to the wild. 3D printed guns will be for everyone to use.

    1. Re:Plans will be released anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've already done so. The plans have been out for years, and are about as hard to find as a pirated copy of Game of Thrones...

  23. Re:It's not like these are the first open source g by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    I know about getting into trouble due to packaging lobsters improperly due to laws of another nation etc....

    Doesn't mean I think it's right.

    If we are intentionally importing/exporting to another nation - sure, make sure the laws line up. Unless that is the case, then fuck-all.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  24. I don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care that there will be another school/theatre/work shooting this week and another shooting next week and so on and so on. Some old turds said any nutjob can own a gun and so that is the law. (The same old turds didn't see anything wrong with slavery but that's another story.) Anyway, not enough people in america cherish their children enough to change the laws. So suck it.

  25. Re:It's not like these are the first open source g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are many cases where he has supported the constitution including his Supreme Court pick of constitutionalist Kavanaugh. He frequently speaks out in defense of both 1st and 2nd amendment rights. He speaks out against Fake News, not against the "Free Press". He rightfully opposes the MSM propaganda machine that have sold their souls to push for Democrat empowerment and not to inform. Your "Trump is the Devil!" beliefs lead you to speak unconvincingly to his supporters because you speak provably false things. Free yourself from your left wing echo chambers that misinform you, embrace facts instead of unsubstantiated feelings and be happy again!

  26. Are you a bigot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but blacks are getting out of poverty and their unemployment numbers are at record lows. I understand you must be a racist and be upset by this, but thats how it is now. DNC has attempted to keep blacks as slaves, prevent them from voting, and recently to keep them in poverty reliant on the government. The GOP has freed the slaves, gotten them the right to vote, and is now helping them get out of poverty.

    It must really suck to be a KKK, Robert Byrd, DNC supporter these days.

    1. Re: Are you a bigot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is so funny that the only name you know is Robert Byrd.

      Is that because you forget whose statues you chained yourself to defending?

    2. Re: Are you a bigot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that because you forget whose statues you chained yourself to defending?

      Says who? Look at Richard Spencer, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and... Democrat.

      Conservatives and libertarians have consistently fought racism, slavery, segregation, and discrimination.

      Democrats and progressives have supported all those evils.

    3. Re: Are you a bigot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that because you forget whose statues you chained yourself to defending?

      Says who? Look at Richard Spencer, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and... Democrat.

      And? According to your precious Republican, Conservative, Businessman President, he's a good person, trying to Unite the Right.

      Come now you're really trying to make a joke. He's a Democrat. Why? What party circles does he influence? Who does he support today? And his rally was called "Unite the Right" so what you going to do about that? Blather endlessly about it being secretly liberal progressive socialist atheist Kenyan anti-colonial Muslim?

      Because you just have to shrilly cry your words of despite. That's all you've got.

      Conservatives and libertarians have consistently fought racism, slavery, segregation, and discrimination.

      Interesting how you want to so praise your preferred affiliation. But it's not based in reality. Conservatives and libertarians, like all political affiliations have been through a variety of political positions, and that includes support for racism, slavery, segregation, and discrimination. All for the noblest of reasons, or so they tell us at the time.

      But that's history, so perhaps we should consider the now, conservatives are fiercely supportive of their current paradigm of racism and discrimination, which is based on considering those people to be freeloaders, or even just less than themselves, treating them as a threat, who is somehow tyrannizing them, or otherwise behaving maliciously.

      And of course, they're vehemently opposed to removing the statues and flags that were raised to celebrate racism, slavery, segregation and discrimination. Noticed that, have you? Why, no, no, you can't admit that at all. It's quite ironic.

      Conservatives spent decades clamoring over the Civil War, but now, they're so defensive about it, they can't admit that slavery was the driving point of the antagonism.

      Democrats and progressives have supported all those evils.

      Except Democrats were, once upon a time, those who would be identified as conservative, so you contradict yourself, in a way. And Republicans, including ones you might cheer(if with near ignorance of any of their positions), did indeed once consider themselves to be progressive. That said, after the Civil War, the supposed progressives were remarkably uninterested in actually defending Civil Rights, quickly abandoning that issue in favor of immediate political power.

      Not too relevant today, though, as things changed, though it does remind us that things do change.

      I get it though, you want to worry about dead people, and what they did, not the people of today, and what they're doing.

      After all, it's much easier for you to rail at your imaginary constructs and pretend the ills of the reality of today doesn't exist.

      Instead of facing up to that,, you can just wrap yourself in the false cloak of prior ideals, and use that to justify your sins.

      That's how we know your moral bankruptcy is what drives you. Your evil is the most banal of them all.

    4. Re:Are you a bigot? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but blacks are getting out of poverty and their unemployment numbers are at record lows.

      Which is a continuation of the trajectory we established when there was an intelligent man in the white house rather than a man whose entire life is a lie. Give Trump time and he'll end that trend, whether on purpose or not.

      DNC has attempted to keep blacks as slaves

      The DNC did not exist when slavery was abolished. Keep trying, though.

      prevent them from voting

      The DixieCrats are not of any real significance in 2018. We do have documented examples though of current republicans trying really, really, really, hard to suppress the vote in places that are majority non-white, majority low-income, majority college-educated, or majority-democrat. Can you find a case of democrats making an effort to suppress the vote anywhere this year?

      to keep them in poverty reliant on the government

      Can you support that with actual data? Of course not.

      The GOP has ...

      You're trying to take credit for things that the Republican Party did ~150 years ago. You're conveniently ignoring the fact that Lincoln would be thrown out of the party for being too liberal. Hell Reagan would be thrown out for being too liberal (and not accepting enough of Russia). And have you bothered to look at a map of the states that voted Lincoln into the white house? Almost none of them voted Trump into the white house, and few of them ever supported anyone named Bush.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  27. Re:It's not like these are the first open source g by pecosdave · · Score: 2

    How short our memories are.

    When Obama first took office there was an outcry from both the left and right about the pressure the Obama administration put on news organizations that caused the purge of many journalist. There were articles everywhere about the purges on people getting fired all over the place to keep the administration happy - then silence - then most of the old articles slowly got purged from the archives. The only remnants of that era that are still in the "public memory" are the Fox News spats.

    Unlike the previous administration - and the combined corporate efforts of corporations against their political enemies today - Trump hasn't done anything to stop the press. He just makes fun of the organizations he disagrees with mercilessly. Fox and other right-wing / independent media were straight up barred from the White House during much of the previous administration with other pressures outside of that.

    To accuse President Trump of being anti-press when all he's doing is having name calling sessions with the ones he doesn't like and pretending he's the first president to have disagreements with the press is disingenuous at the least. This was even brought up on Slashdot in the past.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  28. Issues here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 - free speech implications.
    2 - since when does talking about legal items become illegal?

  29. so many double negatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    okay, so can they share the blueprints still or not?

  30. Wouldn't a CNC mill be better than a 3d Printer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My understanding is that 3D printers generally use plastic, which is why some people have been freaking out about "undetectable" guns.

    But plastic is too weak for most ammunition. A CNC mill can actually make receivers of metal that will stand up to abuse. And plans for that have been around for years.

  31. Re:It's not like these are the first open source g by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really, even a zip gun made from hardware store water pipe is 'better'. But i dont think that is the point, its a test bed for encroachment on knowledge.. scary stuff.

  32. Please Explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this judge can just blatantly ignore the Constitution then why can't the state department and DOJ ignore his ruling and unofficially cease to enforce this law. Its quite obvious based on supreme court ruling on related material (bombs, improvised devices of destruction) that you can't outlaw a book with instructions. The anarchist cookbook is a good example. The judge himself even admitted that he was infringing on the defendants 1st amendment rights in his own statement. Claiming that this worthless gun would damage national security as an excuse to block these plans is ludicrous to anyone with the least bit of sanity. There are far superior weapons readily available. On top of that these plans are already available practically everywhere but Defense Distributed and still not a single case that I am aware of where they have been used in a crime. Saying these plans irreparably damage states security is a lie that everyone can see. This judge needs to be removed. If he would like to run for Congress and then change the Constitution he is welcome to. But his position does not grant the right to arbitrarily ignore the highest law in the land while making up his own.

  33. Recipe: by Megol · · Score: 1

    2 pipes, one pipe cap, one nail, solder, heat source, drill + ammunition: a shotgun.

    I think it's equally hard to protect against "ghost guns" as against Spectre. Anybody that can make a working weapon using a normal 3D printer can make one anyway IMO/IME. Sensitive basterds those glorified hot plastic squirters...

  34. 80% vs. 20% by mi · · Score: 1

    That's a fascinating read, thank you. I've been meaning to get a gun myself, but the bureaucratic process is just overwhelming (by design).

    The only question is, once I follow the steps and manage to finish the remaining 20% of the lower receiver myself, would it be legal for me to transport this firearm — such as to a range to test it (and myself)?

    Or will any cop be able to confiscate it — and put me away for a long time — because of the simple possession?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:80% vs. 20% by DaHat · · Score: 1

      It's been by go to link when trying to get people to understand how far out of the bottle the gun genie is.

      I've been meaning to get a gun myself, but the bureaucratic process is just overwhelming (by design).

      Do it! Though what bureaucratic processes are you finding difficult?

      In most states getting a long gun is as simple as going to a gun shop, picking one out, filling out a 4473 and having them run a quick background check with the feds. Handgun purchases are similar, though in some states you may need a permit to buy.

      The only question is, once I follow the steps and manage to finish the remaining 20% of the lower receiver myself, would it be legal for me to transport this firearm — such as to a range to test it (and myself)?

      At the federal level you are fine, so long as you can legally own a firearm. http://www.gunsholstersandgear... has some great info.

      Or will any cop be able to confiscate it — and put me away for a long time — because of the simple possession?

      Recall that your local police really only enforce state/local law... so I can't speak to what prohibitions there may be where you are, I do know where I live it is perfectly legal, assuming again, you can legally posses a firearm.

      Keep in mind though... IANAL... I'm just one who pays a lot of attention as my liberty is on the line should I screw up.

    2. Re:80% vs. 20% by sarren1901 · · Score: 1

      Just do the process. I live in California and it really isn't that bad. It's bs, for sure, but it is very doable. Here are the steps for California. There are also limits on how many firearms you are allowed to buy in a 30 day period as well. Also in California not all weapons you can buy in red states are available, so you end up buying gimped version that are CA approved. You can modify them if you want but if you are just target practicing it's not a big deal.

      1) You'll have to take a written safety test that I think is good for two years. $10-$15.

      2) You have to pay for a DROS form. It's a federal background check. $25

      3) 10 day waiting period. This starts I believe when the store gets the actual firearm. If they have it in the store, its 10 days from payment. If you buy online, it gets delivered to the store and the waiting period starts then.

      4) Before you can take possession you have to show the dealer you are capable of actually using the firearm. This involves pulling back the slide until it locks, leaving the action open and for you to visibly "see" the gun is not loaded. Anyone in normal health can do this, even with a new gun that's factor stiff. Ironically my arm was injured at the time and I could barely grip anything so pulling the slide back was extremely difficult for me. I forced myself to do it but yeah.

      Also, if you don't pick up your gun before 30 days, the sale is cancelled.

      I'm not saying all that is reasonable or fair or even effective but it is doable and the background check and safety test are only done once a year or every other year. You don't need one for each and every gun either.

      You should do the process and get the gun. You may never use it but it's just nice to have and sometimes you can go to the range and that's fun too.

    3. Re:80% vs. 20% by mi · · Score: 1

      In most states getting a long gun is as simple as going to a gun shop, picking one out, filling out a 4473 and having them run a quick background check with the feds

      In NJ one needs a personal permit, and then a separate one for each firearm. This state makes possession of a slingshot without "explainable lawful purpose" illegal — however you obtained it — so, I fear, possessing an actual firearm may be worse...

      Besides, I'd rather not appear on any centralized listings either — was it "Red Dawn", where the invaders obtain just such a list and make the listed gun-owners their top priority?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  35. Everything is the current Presidents fault by zferrini · · Score: 0

    The one thing I cant stand is the way everything is Trumps fault. It was the same for Obama, when he was Pres everything was his fault. It isnt the president, they only server for at the most 8 years. Now Congreass, yes I meant to spell it like that, gets to mess up the country until they die if they get elected that long. Why are they allowed to influence for far longer than they understand the United States and how we as a people feel. When you are almost 90 you should no longer be actually in office. Maybe a consultant but not in congress or the senate. This is the real issue, they have created what Trump calls the "Deep State". This has been in place for a long time. We need to regulate congress and the senate by curbing the term they can officially be in office to 12 years total. They should not be allowed to move to another district and get any more time to weasel their back in and attempt to direct the country in the way THEY want it and not the ones that elected their butts. Just my opinion as an independent American.

  36. Stupid Trope by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

    Ah the "routinely overturned" trope. 83% of all supreme court decisions overturn the lower or appellate court. The 9th circuit isn't even close to the most overturned.

    This makes sense when you consider that the Supreme court generally doesn't take cases where they agree with the court ruling. If they agree with it why would they even hear the case? They get more than 10K applications every session and can hear about 80. That's a LOT of rejections.

    1. Re:Stupid Trope by kaoshin · · Score: 1

      The 9th circuit isn't even close to the most overturned.

      While it is true the 9th circuit isn't actually the MOST overturned, they are (at least going by politifact research) in the top 3, trailing the most overturned by a difference of only a few percentage points and leading a number of other courts by a significant margin. They also seem to have a consistently high reversal rate over time. This may not be a huge number, but it is high above average.

      More to the point though, we all know the real reason the 9th is commonly under fire by republicans is not because of math, but rather their notable history of leftist judicial activism and controversial decisions.

    2. Re:Stupid Trope by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      It is overturned about 80% of the time, putting it in the bottom 25% in terms of rulings that stand.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Stupid Trope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is overturned about 80% of the time, putting it in the bottom 25% in terms of rulings that stand.

      Lynnwood Rooster, claiming one thing, while his own citation states, quite clearly:

      The Supreme Court reversed about 70 percent of cases it took between 2010-15. Among cases it reviewed from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, it reversed about 79 percent.

      "Reversal rates for each court of appeals would be very small, in the range of a tenth of a percent, if calculated as the total number of cases reversed over the total number of appeals terminated by that court," Hofer wrote in his article published by the American Bar Association. "Conversely, if the reversal rate is calculated as the total number of cases reversed over the total number of cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, the ratio increases dramatically."

      In comparing courts’ "performance," it makes more sense to compare reversal rate in terms of the ratio of cases reversed over cases reviewed by the Supreme Court, Hofer said.

      Over the 10-year period analyzed by Hofer, the 9th Circuit terminated 114,199 cases, in comparison, the 1st Circuit had 16,620, he found.

      Huh. I wonder why you lie so badly. Do you just have an agenda to push, so desperately, that you don't care about how easy it is to expose your transparent attempts at deception?

    4. Re:Stupid Trope by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I guess if you want to consider 79% far enough from 80% to be radically different - you got me. Otherwise, the fact is the fact - the 9th is overturned 80% of the time.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:Stupid Trope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is what they mean by "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ninth-circuit-court-most-overturned/

  37. Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it's illegal to transmit plans for making guns, then how on earth can it be legal to publicize information on how to make nuclear weapons? A lone whackjob killing one person far away has no possibility of affecting me, but a nuclear weapon detonating in the US most certainly would.

    Of course, there's the lazy argument that it's a lot harder to make a nuke, but that's dodging the issue. Technology progresses over time, things that used to be hard can become easy overnight once the right discovery happens.

  38. Doesn't matter... by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... The technology is inherently uncontrollable. They can't stop pictures of naked children getting raped and you think you're going to stop gun blueprints? You can't stop pirated video games or bomb recipes...

    This cannot be stopped.

    All the judges and lawyers are doing is demonstrating their impotence.

    It cannot be stopped.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Doesn't matter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the judges and lawyers are doing is collecting a paycheck.

      FTFY

  39. In the Line of Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we should prevent dissemination of the 1993 movie "In the Line of Fire" where John Malkovich shows how to build a plastic resin gun and sneak the bullets and any other metal parts past security.

  40. Re: It's not like these are the first open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How short our memories are.

    I remember you personally having hysterical freakouts during the Obama administration as you railed against their supposed misdeeds, how you couldn't even stand it when Obama offered the most tepid criticisms, and if he slightly mispoke, you went on a foaming at the mouth crusade.

    Now? Suddenly you're just indifferent to Trump's behavior, or blind to it. You don't care what he does. Lies, frauds, or just plain rambling babble, doesn't matter to you.

    But you're still bitter over a misquote you made about Nancy Pelosi, the enemy you still want purged.

  41. Well I hope this gets the notoriety it deserves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, it's no big problem to get a real gun in the US. These files are for the those who don't have the privilege of living in such a benevolent regime. Hopefully theses files posted for non-US builders will give some of the worlds assholes something to keep them up at night worrying about their ill-gotten gains.

    But I wish there was something we could do more rapidly in the legal domain for these obstructionist judges who think they can legislate from the bench, knowing full well they will be reversed as it goes up the hierarchy, but counting on getting their way until it does, and seldom suffering any punishment for their crimes. Suggestions welcomed.

  42. You fell for a joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They sell them at S-Mart back in sporting goods. Aisle 5.

    Remember, shop SMART, shop S-MART!

  43. Idiots on the bench and state AGs by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

    It’s not incomprehensible. “... shall not be infringed.” Is clear language, as is the first amendment since these files are nothing more than modern descriptions of a firearm.

    And, one can legally produce unserialized firearms for personal use already. And one can find instructions online and buy the parts for less than $20 to make a slam fire shotgun. And one can buy an “80%” receiver and make an inexpensive 45 pistol, AR-15, AK-47, etc.

    This is nothing but legislating a specific technology. Where in the Constitution is it specified a Judge can overrule the Executive Branch? They need to uphold the laws and rights allowing publication, not judicially create new law.

    It’s time to consider impeaching activist judges that legislate from the bench. Maybe a judicial review panel that refers impeachment’s to the Congress of activist judges. Surely some activist judge can create such a panel. ... or properly a law could create one.

    --
    - Tjp

    I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

  44. Not your job my ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not our job to enforce the laws of other countries,

    Could you freakin tell that to your leaders then?? And their livestock (war nuts, aka most of your citizens) too?
    Instead of meddling with ALL the countries you possibly can!?

    1. Re: Not your job my ass! by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      I'm a libertarian and even though I've never joined due to time constraints I've at least attended meetings of the non-partisan foriegn policy alliance that's demanding just that.

      I'm all for bringing all of our troops home and keeping them trained by keeping them on border bases and the coast of our own nation.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  45. ...dangerous and incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two words that accurately describe and summarize the current Administration. Hats off to the judge on a sound decision, especially in an age where there appears to be a serious lack thereof. Granted, you won't stop file sharing this way, or any other way...where there is a will, there will ALWAYS be a way.

  46. Gunsmithing Made Easy by ooloorie · · Score: 1

    Fortunately, Gunsmithing Made Easy is still available. As are thousands of other titles on making firearms at home.

  47. The government doesn't GRANT natural rights by thule · · Score: 1

    You state it like the government granted us the right to "keep and bear arms". That is now how the Bill of Rights work. The point is to restrain the government from infringing on rights we already have. In the US, our rights don't come from government.

  48. Even better! by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Build a gun with a drill press and hand tools! Lots of other related books telling you how to make even simpler guns, ammunition, even gunpowder. Buy from Amazon, have it on your Kindle a matter of seconds!

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Even better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More guns, more dead Americans, what’s not to like about that, raises the worlds average IQ.

  49. Sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Abridge literally means you left no bridge, so "shall not abridge" doesn't mean there are no rules to navigate, only that there is a path through those rules that leads to exercising the right."

    “But the plans were on display”
    “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
    “That’s the display department.”
    “With a flashlight.”
    “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
    “So had the stairs.”
    “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
    “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

  50. Not sure how blueprints can be illegal. by clay_buster · · Score: 1

    How are these different than any other blueprint? There are plenty of firearms diagrams and dimension guides floating around.

  51. Still can be shared via email or snail-mail by clay_buster · · Score: 1

    And as the court order specifies, the files can still legally be "emailed, mailed, securely transmitted or otherwise published within the United States." https://www.npr.org/2018/08/27...

    1. Re:Still can be shared via email or snail-mail by Noishkel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I saw that. How ridiculous is it that the judge would rule against placing this files on a website, but you're fully allowed to email them or mail them in a physical form? That's some 'the internet is made of tubes' sort of logic.

      I have a strong suspicion that this case is going to call apart if it gets to SCOTUS.

    2. Re:Still can be shared via email or snail-mail by PPH · · Score: 1

      within the United States

      How about pulling a copy off an overseas torrent site?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  52. Re: NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh no an opinion that differs from mine! I better hurt then in their imaginary internet points. Get laid virgin... that was the most pathetic thing I have read today

  53. Go with the vz 58 instead of the AK. by Noishkel · · Score: 1

    The vz 58 is a lot better choice if you're going to make your own AK-47 like rifle.. The 58 is milled while most AK variants are made of stamped sheet metal. Stamped is cheaper if you're making a lot of a gun. But if you're a hobbyist a milled design will be better since it has less start up cost. This is a part of the reason that one of the designs that DD released was the 58. I intend to build one if I can save up enough to get a good mill.

  54. Re: NO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sure told him, Comrade Wang!

  55. Stupid posturing, to be honest. by OwP_Fabricated · · Score: 1

    I'm a leftist who (generally) supports gun ownership and this whole "Ghost Gun" thing really is just scaremongering over the larger issue of guns.

    I'm not afraid of a plastic one-shot .22 handgun. No politician should be either.

    If I was GOING to be afraid of a gun (which I'm not really?) I'd be afraid of something like say, a hi-point c9 which can be had for $50-150 brand new and fires a deadlier round, more of them, and shoots straight. A criminal does not give 3/5ths of a shit that the gun can be traced, and especially not because $50-150 is ass-wiping money if you're going to profit from whatever you do. C9s are just as disposable as a 3d printed gun, it's just that they actually do their job better and likely won't spray shrapnel into your face.

  56. Re:It's not like these are the first open source g by sabbede · · Score: 1
    Yup, autocrats love telling people they won't be silenced, and derive great pleasure from ensuring the people retain the capacity to resist or even dissolve the government should it become destructive to the ends for which governments are created.

    Oh, wait, that's the opposite of what they do.

    Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

  57. Re:It's not like these are the first open source g by sabbede · · Score: 1

    There are also treaties to consider. There was a famous case where people in a midwestern State were hunting a migratory bird that was illegal to shoot in Canada. We had a treaty with Canada that included rules for hunting game that crossed borders, so the Court said, "Sorry State, treaties are the supreme law of the land so Canada wins." Yes, "supreme law of the land". A treaty could even override the Constitution.

  58. Noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this noise...for what? a little more trump derangement syndrome feeding?
    The plans are already out there.
    All this did was advertised they existed.
    It's over folks, nothing to see here, move along, next BS news story is incoming.

  59. What the heck is wrong with US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This whole thing is stupid piled on brainless.

    This isn't really a proper gun. Try to fire it with any purchased ammo then the plastic thing would not reliably function. It is fake. It is a fraud.

    If you wish to find information about how to make real guns, search US patents. That's right, the US government REQUIRES publishing the nature of gun design if you want patent protection for your developments.

    People in rather undeveloped countries are making real functioning guns in crude workshops. The copies they make are of modern high function firearms that work. This is the US where tools and materials are more easily acquired. Fighting information in the US about manufacturing things is like fighting arrogance in France. It is abusing the essential nature of the people.

    If state law bozos wanted to actually do something besides grandstanding they could probably successfully fight the distribution of these plans on the grounds of public safety and wanton endangerment. The plastic gun is inherently unsafe. It is fraudulent to call it a gun. Distributing plans and calling them firearm plans is a public safety issue. Some moron may actually try to fire ammo in one and hurt himself or others. It's like selling rat poison in a sugar package.

  60. Re: It's not like these are the first open source by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    Looks like her own people want her purged now, so maybe I'm just ahead of the curve.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  61. *sigh* NOT Fake News by gosand · · Score: 1

    This is real news. It really happened, stop with that BS.

    Everything else you said was spot on. It is somewhat of a slippery slope that could go bad. I think that anyone providing these files, or really any information about making guns for personal use, should be required to include the information you posted. Because as you noted, you have to be LEGALLY able to use that information, and people should understand the law if they would make one and NOT be legally able to do so. Also the part about being prohibited from creating guns that cannot be detected by metal detectors.

    People need to be more EDUCATED about guns, and in this case about obtaining these plans. Because we can't rely on their common sense, or lack thereof.

    I find it troubling that guns are such a polarizing issue. They are not the cause of all the horrendous things they can do, it is how we operate as people and a society with each other that drives the horrible acts that people do. As long as people think "all guns are bad" or "I should be able to own ANY kind of gun I want" then we won't be able to achieve sane solutions.

    P.S. I am a multiple gun owner, and live where I can legally carry concealed.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  62. "dangerous and incompetent"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or Necessary and Liberty-Affirming?
    Shall. Not. infringe.

    Liberals will one day teach us their "common-sense" anti-gun wisdom, at the points of their own hired guns! :-/

  63. Re: It's not like these are the first open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like her own people want her purged now, so maybe I'm just ahead of the curve.

    Nope. She'll cruise to victory in California 12. I'm sure you're just confused by how California's jungle primary works. It actually leads to a diversity of candidates, though it does have some faults.

    But hey, how do you feel now that Trump has just gone out on Twitter and proclaimed everything you said yesterday was totally bogus?

    Got to be some tasty nails you're chewing.

  64. Re: It's not like these are the first open source by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    I think it's great you're all hot and bothered for Pelosi, but not all of your people share your attraction for her.

    I think it's great you've avoided talking about her twin ding-bat that's been hosting a Chinese spy for years.

    Since you obviously follow Donald Trump on Twitter and I don't, you had me at a disadvantage. I had to go find what you were talking about that would have me spitting nails. I found this one about rigged algorithms. This isn't news, I've been using Google+ since it premiered and it's incredibly obvious during each election since it came out. Since we were talking about Obama, media and what Trump said about them, I did find a tweet from a couple of days ago where he mentioned Obama and media in the same tweet. Exactly which one is supposed to have me spitting nails?

    You are demonstrating the difference between the rabbid left and the rest of us - and by the rest of us I mean Republicans, Libertarians, Don't Give a Shits, and non-radical Democrats.

    I'm giving references and links. - You are not, and putting words into the mouths of others. Just like the press and lawyers attacking Alex Jones but not actually playing clips of him doing what they're accusing him of.
    I'm using my real handle which is pointless to dox, I'm not hiding. - You on the other hand are A/C wearing a mask and on the attack like those Anti-First Amendment thugs, Antifa

    Honestly I hope Pelosi cleans up and wins again, it's good for the entertainment value. It's California, so whoever wins is likely to a communist who cares more about bathroom politics than making the country work right anyways. Pelosi is good for a laugh and is a poster child for the Walk Away movement. I hope she stays out there.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.