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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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: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: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: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.

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.