Slashdot Mirror
Federal Judge Rules Against Trump Administration on 3-D Gun Blueprint Case (latimes.com)
A federal judge on Monday issued a preliminary injunction continuing a prohibition on the Trump administration proposal to make available blueprints for so-called ghost guns, untraceable weapons that can be manufactured on a 3-D printer, California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra said. From a report: California was one of 20 states led by Washington that won the decision from U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnik in Seattle. The injunction extends a ruling last month that barred the Trump administration from taking steps that would allow the firm Defense Distributed to disseminate 3-D gun blueprints. "When the Trump Administration inexplicably gave the green light to distribute on the internet blueprints of 3D-printed, untraceable ghost guns, it needlessly endangered our children, our loved ones and our men and women in law enforcement," Becerra said in a statement. "The Trump Administration's actions were dangerous and incompetent."
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.
What is so complicated about "[s]hall not be infringed?"
The Second Amendment talks about the right to keep and bear arms, not manufacture them ...
Who is manufacturing them? This is like Metallica suing Napster for distributing mp3 files. The judge says you can't download these files. What if you printed the text of these files into a book and sold it? Would that book be deemed illegal?
Then it sounds like a First Amendment issue, not Second.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.
The judge says you can't download the files from defense distributed
The files are readily available.
As are other files that show you how to make usable guns from metal (AK action from a shovel).
This one has to be tough for TDS people, he's right. Best to just move past it, as fast as possible.
An all plastic gun is already illegal to have. They are supposed to set off metal detectors. IIRC 10 years federal, same as an unlicensed machine gun/guided missile.
You can be up for 10 years for purposely bending a semi auto's firing pin, making it slamfire. The whole area of law is no joke. 10 years for a useless plastic gun would be embarrassing. Like a 'petty' crime bust.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
Indeed - this has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment - and everything to do with the 1st.
You see, it's already legal to manufacture these guns in most places within the US. If you have the file it's legal to print it.
What they're literally saying is that it's illegal to transmit the INSTRUCTIONS. The information on how to do so.
I'm sorry, but there's no way that will pass constitutional muster. If you want to try and outlaw the home manufacture of guns that's a separate issue that is not currently being debated, but barring the publication of instructional information, PARTICULARLY regarding a completely legal activity, is antithetical to the 1st ammendment.
This will certainly be overturned.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Actually we do, however the right to bear arms isn't granted to the militia. It's granted to the people, based on the fact that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and the people need arms to be able to form a militia when needed.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain