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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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!

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Too late

[callahan2211]

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

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

[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.

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

[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: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: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.

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.