Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

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."

10 of 418 comments (clear)

  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 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
    2. 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. . . .
    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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
    6. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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