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."

Comments

Another judge legislating from the bench

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[fahrbot-bot]

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 ...

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[ArchieBunker]

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?

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[fahrbot-bot]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[HornWumpus]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[EvilSS]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Aighearach]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[bws111]

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."

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[MBGMorden]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Woldscum]

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]

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Gravis Zero]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[MBGMorden]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[MBGMorden]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[wizkid]

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?

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[sycodon]

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

They weren't having any of that shit.

Artists benefit from cash.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[HornWumpus]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[sycodon]

Because Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. never happened.

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

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[sycodon]

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

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[DaHat]

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...

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[oic0]

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

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[DaHat]

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...

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[CrimsonAvenger]

"Yelling fire" isn't limited at all.

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

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[x0ra]

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

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[JesseMcDonald]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[guruevi]

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

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[penandpaper]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[guruevi]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[guruevi]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[JesseMcDonald]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[guruevi]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Var1abl3]

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???

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[HornWumpus]

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

* Grammarian troll.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[rahvin112]

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

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[x0ra]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[DaHat]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[tricorn]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[chmod a x mojo]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[PopeRatzo]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[wisnoskij]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[DaHat]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[TigerPlish]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[ooloorie]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[DaHat]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[DaHat]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[jedidiah]

> 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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[jedidiah]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[DaHat]

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?

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[c6gunner]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[bws111]

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

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[h33t l4x0r]

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

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[guruevi]

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

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[cstacy]

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?

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[Dare nMc]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[cstacy]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[cstacy]

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.)

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[TigerPlish]

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?

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[rtb61]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Crashmarik]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[Wycliffe]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Noishkel]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[Wycliffe]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Pseudonym]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[oneunixguy]

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

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Jane Q. Public]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[shaitand]

This actually violates both the first and second amendment.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[shaitand]

"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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[shaitand]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[shaitand]

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

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[terrycarlino]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[terrycarlino]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[gl4ss]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[terrycarlino]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[saider]

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

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[Cederic]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[SharpFang]

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

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[sabbede]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[SharpFang]

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?

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[aquacrayfish]

Even then he has been well checked by both the Congress

*Snicker*.... huh?

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[EvilSS]

" 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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[dwillden]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[dwillden]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[torkus]

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

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[dwillden]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[dwillden]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[SuiteSisterMary]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[dwillden]

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?

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[dwillden]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[harrkev]

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?

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[blindseer]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[dwillden]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[penandpaper]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Citizen of Earth]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[penandpaper]

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

Linguistic gymnastics will never be abused by lawyers.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[torkus]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[SuiteSisterMary]

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

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[penandpaper]

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?

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[harrkev]

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

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[stealth_finger]

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

The rest of the sentence.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[Wycliffe]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Kjella]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[JesseMcDonald]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Noishkel]

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?

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[SuiteSisterMary]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[JesseMcDonald]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[shaitand]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[penandpaper]

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?

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[SuiteSisterMary]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[guruevi]

That is indeed the ATF's opinion.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[penandpaper]

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.

Re: Another judge legislating from the bench

[Talderas]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[SuiteSisterMary]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[AmiMoJo]

Thanks for that detailed explanation.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[rpstrong]

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 .

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[ChrisMaple]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Pseudonym]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Pseudonym]

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.

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[eric_harris_76]

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!

Re:Another judge legislating from the bench

[Aighearach]

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.

DUMB!

[Zorro]

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

Re:DUMB!

[ArchieBunker]

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?

Re:DUMB!

[andydread]

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?

Re:DUMB!

[Aighearach]

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. ;)

Re:DUMB!

[HornWumpus]

You were never a teenager?

Re:DUMB!

[MBGMorden]

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.

Re:DUMB!

[penandpaper]

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

Re:DUMB!

[Anonymous Coward]

The liberator has a metal firing pin

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

Re:DUMB!

[andydread]

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

Re:DUMB!

[Anonymous Coward]

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/

Re:DUMB!

[x0ra]

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.

Re:DUMB!

[allcoolnameswheretak]

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..

Re:DUMB!

[wisnoskij]

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

Re:DUMB!

[andydread]

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

Re:DUMB!

[ooloorie]

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.

Re:DUMB!

[ooloorie]

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.

Re:DUMB!

[SharpFang]

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.

Re:DUMB!

[HornWumpus]

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.

I STILL don't get it.

[fish_in_the_c]

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?

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[ArchieBunker]

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.

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[lgw]

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!).

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[DigiShaman]

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.

Re: I STILL don't get it.

[fish_in_the_c]

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...

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[EvilSS]

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.

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[MBGMorden]

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.

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[burtosis]

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.

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[Alypius]

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.

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[DigiShaman]

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.

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[burtosis]

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.

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[lgw]

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.

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[x0ra]

the files are already available, you just need to know how to look.

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[BlueStrat]

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

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Neither do the guns in this book, or many others...

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Afghanistan and Vietnam would like to remind you of what happens when a superpower tries to control them...

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[Alypius]

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.

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[burtosis]

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.

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[EvilSS]

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.

Re:I STILL don't get it.

[SharpFang]

> Statist states are going to state.

ftfy

Too late

[callahan2211]

The code is already out there. Ultimately, the SCOTUS will rule that code is free speech.

Re:Too late

[Aighearach]

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!

Oh c'mon

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Oh c'mon

[gravewax]

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.

Re:Oh c'mon

[pots]

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.

Re:Oh c'mon

[blindseer]

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.

Re:Oh c'mon

[Undead Waffle]

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

Re:Oh c'mon

[Areyoukiddingme]

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.

Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author

[stevegee58]

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.

Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author

[mentil]

Note the tortured wording to try to lay responsibility directly at the feet of Trump. He's become the nation's whipping boy, apparently.

Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author

[JesseMcDonald]

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.

Re: Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author

[blindseer]

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.

Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author

[mysidia]

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.

Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author

[blindseer]

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.

Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author

[h33t l4x0r]

Trump should be against ghost guns. Hasn't he seen "In the Line of Fire"?

Re:Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author

[mentil]

The real lesson from that movie is to ban rabbits' feet.

What a joke.

[stevegee58]

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.

Re:The Ninth Circus Strikes Again

[bobbied]

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

It's not like these are the first open source guns

[pecosdave]

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.

Re:3D-printed guns are useless...

[bobbied]

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.

Reminds me of the PGP and DeCSS case

[CharlieG]

This whole case so much reminds me of the PGP and DeCSS cases, and if printing them in books was protected speech or not.

Re:Reminds me of the PGP and DeCSS case

[Mike Van Pelt]

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.

Re:It's not like these are the first open source g

[pecosdave]

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.

Re:It's not like these are the first open source g

[pecosdave]

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.

Recipe:

[Megol]

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...

80% vs. 20%

[mi]

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?

Re:80% vs. 20%

[DaHat]

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.

Re:80% vs. 20%

[sarren1901]

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.

Re:80% vs. 20%

[mi]

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?

Stupid Trope

[rahvin112]

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.

Re:Stupid Trope

[kaoshin]

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.

Re:Stupid Trope

[LynnwoodRooster]

It is overturned about 80% of the time, putting it in the bottom 25% in terms of rulings that stand.

Re:Stupid Trope

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

Doesn't matter...

[Karmashock]

... 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.

Idiots on the bench and state AGs

[Tjp($)pjT]

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.

Gunsmithing Made Easy

[ooloorie]

Fortunately, Gunsmithing Made Easy is still available. As are thousands of other titles on making firearms at home.

The government doesn't GRANT natural rights

[thule]

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.

Even better!

[LynnwoodRooster]

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!

Not sure how blueprints can be illegal.

[clay_buster]

How are these different than any other blueprint? There are plenty of firearms diagrams and dimension guides floating around.

Still can be shared via email or snail-mail

[clay_buster]

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...

Re:Still can be shared via email or snail-mail

[Noishkel]

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.

Re:Still can be shared via email or snail-mail

[PPH]

within the United States

How about pulling a copy off an overseas torrent site?

Go with the vz 58 instead of the AK.

[Noishkel]

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.

Re:3D-printed guns are useless...

[Cederic]

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

Stupid posturing, to be honest.

[OwP_Fabricated]

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.

Re:It's not like these are the first open source g

[sabbede]

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?

Re:It's not like these are the first open source g

[sabbede]

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.

Re: It's not like these are the first open source

[pecosdave]

Looks like her own people want her purged now, so maybe I'm just ahead of the curve.

*sigh* NOT Fake News

[gosand]

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.

Re:Are you a bigot?

[damn_registrars]

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.

Re: Not your job my ass!

[pecosdave]

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.

Re: It's not like these are the first open source

[pecosdave]

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.