But that would require the company to show cause for revoking the lease. Said cause requires an illegal act as in your example of the printer trying to print money. Making your own guns is not illegal or even of questionable legality. It's a long standing practice with solid legal footing.
Again the company is breaking the lease without legal cause. I know they'll get away with it because I'm sure that somewhere in the fine print is a clause that allows the company to break the lease because the lessee has consumed dihydrogen monoxide. But it's still wrong, and if the lessee can't just skip on a lease (assuming the equipment is returned in full working condition) why can the company?
Not grey at all. The BATFE has the authority to regulate firearms, NOT the designs or plans for firearms. You can order 80% kits where 80% of the machining is done, you just have to drill a few more holes. You can buy or trade cnc mill CAD files for firearms today. It's legal, the ATF say's it's legal (as long as it's not a NFA weapon you want to make), and it's widely done already, this just moves it to a new medium, but does not change a single thing about the law allowing you to make your own firearms.
Oh I understand how broadly the commerce clause is abused. But perhaps you are looking at the Fed's failure to act in the wrong light. I think they've failed to challenge the laws because such a challenge has the potential to cost the Feds a ton of control. But by ignoring the actions of two very conservative states with small populations they can 1: claim challenging the two states isn't worth the bother and 2: avoid the potential of a SCOTUS decision striking down the excessive abuses of the Commerce clause.
The left dodged a bullet when Justice Roberts gave them an out on the ACA(aka Obama Care.) The ruling you cited regarding wheat was decided by a very liberal court, which was entirely under the thumb of the Administration. At the time what Roosevelt wanted the court ruled because he promised to stack the court if they didn't give him what he wanted. He pointed out that there is no legally set maximum size for the court and he promised to appoint enough judges to get the rulings he wanted if the court then seated didn't comply with his wishes.
The current court would most likely rule very differently on that original case, and the last thing anyone in DC wants is that case or one like it revisited.
Mostly correct but you are incorrect about giving away. Any form of transfer of ownership to another individual is a transfer and at that point the weapon must be registered and serialized. However there are methods of obtaining legal transferable serial numbers. If it's going across a state line you have to go the expensive federal route, but if it's within the state, you may be able to obtain a state serial at little expense (depending on the state).
You are legally able to make just about any non-NFA weapon for your own use, but any transfer of that weapon to another individual is illegal until you get it registered, regardless of cost of transfer. Now this means transfer as in selling, trading or giving it to another individual for them to own. You can lend your firearm without breaking the law, just make sure you both know to clearly state that the weapon is only on loan, not actually given, sold or gifted.
But this does beg the question, transfer is illegal, you transfer it you get prosecuted (in theory). But what about when you die, they can't prosecute you then. And as long as you put something that looks like a serial number on the weapon, the individual who inherits the weapon has broken no law. The law states it's illegal to receive or possess a weapon you didn't manufacture your self if the weapon has no serial number on it. So put a serial number on it even and leave it to your kids.
Nope, what he was offering are not kits but plans/designs to allow those with the equipment to manufacture firearms. Something that is already legal and quite common in the metal working community. It's not illegal or even questionable to sell or share plans and blue prints. And it's not illegal or even questionable to build your own off of those plans. Plans are just that plans, without the equipment and knowhow said plans are not going to result in a firearm. But even if they do result in a home made firearm, that's still a legal activity. Regardless of how you got the plans, it's the actual firearm that would be in question, not the instructions.
What is questionable is the grounds on which this company violated a contract with no solid legal basis for doing so. The Feds hadn't said word one about it because until someone transfers (gives or sells) a home made firearm without a manufacturer's license there is no crime being committed in the manufacture, possession or use of said home made firearm. You can make all the guns you want for your own use as long as you retain legal ownership of the firearm. You just cannot legally transfer one without a license or at least a registered serial number (there are methods for obtaining a serial number to enable transfer of the firearm at a later date).
Nothing illicit about it. It is 100% legal to make your own firearms. Federal law only comes into play when you wish to transfer the firearm to another individual (sell). At least two states (Utah and Montana) have authorized in-state only firearms that do not need any federal paperwork or serial number if made for and sold only in state.
i.e. if it does not cross state borders it does not enter interstate commerce and thus the Feds have no authority to regulate, as their authority to regulate was imposed via the commerce clause.
There is already a good sized community of metal workers who make their own guns, they share plans and designs just as this group planned to do, and then each individual can make his own fully legal firearm. This just moved it to another group of hobbyists.
If their armed with stingers you can send 10,000 of them and nobody will care. A Stinger is an anti-aircraft weapon designed to burst a cloud of shrapnel into the thin skin of an aircraft. The faint pitter patter of bb's hitting the side of the Carrier won't bother anyone. At least use relevant weapons in your attack scenario. You do mention torpedoes. And torpedoes would be a big risk, but those are rather hefty and specific weapons, easily identified before hand and dealt with before they even get into launch position. And don't discount the classified max speed of our carriers in getting out of range of such small motorboats, while the escorts and defensive aircraft enjoy the turkey shoot.
But good luck using your submarine to provide disaster support by providing medical care and transportation. (ie Indonesia after the Tsunami) Good luck using your submarine to find a mobile target and take him out without laying waste to an entire city with your nukes. A sub full of nukes is a great deterrent, that's why we also have a fleet of those, but they are no where near as versatile as a Carrier.
Cruise Missiles are great if all you want the ship to be able to do is destroy buildings, vehicles and people. If you want to be able to provide CAS and CAP, fly rescue missions, escort combat and non-combat vessels and so on, you need manned vehicles. Automation is great but there is still a great need for a self aware thinking pilot who can evaluate and monitor a situation rather than just flying in and blowing up the target. How about drones you say? Well that works until the enemy puts up manned fighters, drones don't do well in dogfights against manned aircraft, and remote piloting introduces signal delays that are fatal in combat.
Assassinations refers to political leaders, i.e. killing a country's president because we know the next in line is more willing to work with us. Bin Laden was not a political leader of any country, he was a terrorist, thus not protected by the executive order prohibiting Assassinations. There is a distinct difference and a reason for the difference.
I agree, I was able to hack my way through the classes needed in my CS program but it was obvious my skills were more on the hardware, and networking side of the house. My code was always clunky and barely capable and took much more work than others. Not that I didn't try, but coding just wasn't where my brain worked.
Okay you are more familiar with the actual printer being targeted than I. And you are most likely correct in that I overstated it's self replication ability, but if so, those hardware store parts are not easily identifiable as parts of or even for said printer. And thus the point and goal of the WikiWeapons group still stands as does the legality of what they are doing.
You buy the printer and print many of the components plus the plans and share them with me so I can get into 3D printing. I take the plans and go to the hardware store and buy the remaining parts needed as well as the print materials needed for the printer. I go home and build the printer using the plans. I then duplicate the printer components and plans and share them with my friends.
Then at some future random time I d/l the firearm file and start printing copies of the firearm. Current materials technologies mean the weapons will most likely be single shot, but I can print as many as I want. As long as I don't sell or give them away I have broken no law.
Actually such limits are found in very few states. There is a thriving gun smithing community that already trades CAD files for CNC machining of entire firearms. If it doesn't enter commerce through sales or transfers (giving), the ability of Federal and State government to regulate this are quite limited. How are they to know what I'm using my printer for? For that matter they are targeting this to a printer model that can print itself. A printer that can be reproduced outside the realm of regulatory controls and thus so would everything printed on the printer be outside regulatory controls.
Oh and the ATF even states that according to the Gun Control Act of 1968, the requirement to place a serial on a firearm does not apply to anyone making a gun for their own use.
For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.
While they are doing initial design on a higher grade printer, they are actually targeting a printer model that is 100% capable of duplicating itself (I can't recall the name and am too lazy to look it up, go read the weaponwiki site for full details.) Thus commercial safeguards will fail because the controls can't work. When I can print a printer for each of my friends and they in turn can print one for each of their friends, and so on. And then we can print the firearm model of our choice. It's a limited version of the Star Trek Replicator concept, if I can replicate anything (including the parts to build more replicators) the need for commerce or the ability to regulate it is limited at best.
Further as long as these firearms are only printed for the person's own use, they do not enter into interstate commerce and are thus outside the federal regulatory powers. Thus no need for serial number, no registration with ATF, nada. People will get in trouble when they try to sell or even share these guns, but as long as thy only share the printer components and the data files, no federal regulation is currently applicable.
Oh I see em, I've yet to hit one because I do see them. I constantly watch for them because so many of them do drive like idiots, thinking their zippy little cars can weave through traffic with impunity. Most smaller cars don't do this but enough do (usually driven by young males) do and thus require maximum attention.
Oh and more importantly you've missed the real point of my post. That the GP's personal anecdote has zero credibility because I can cite one exactly opposite to it.
Actually the only thing rare about voter fraud is convictions because it's nearly impossible to catch in the act, unless a poll worker happens to know the person the fraudulent voter is claiming to be. So yes it's true that convictions and even just arrests for vote fraud are rare, such fraud has a long and storied history in this country and needs to be limited.
Every State has a state Issued ID card (usually available for free) that is fully sufficient for voting. A DL isn't required, just a gov issued photo ID (Military ID's and Passport cards also work).
IC 34-28-5-3
Detention
Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to:
(1) inform the person of the allegation;
(2) obtain the person's:
(A) name, address, and date of birth; or
(B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and
(3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear.
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.
and
IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
There are two options and the DL isn't required, it's just an option, if it's in the person's possession.
They have to have RAS (Reasonable articulable suspicion) of your involvement in a crime, and the detaining officer isn't the one who gets to decide what is reasonable. Oh he can detain you but it's the judge who will determine if he was right or wrong.
Thank you for not buckling under and defending our rights. It was inconvenient, but only by standing up to them are we going to get the judges pissed enough to order them to stop these illegal detentions.
And did you take the police to court for violating your 4th amendment rights? If not then you are part of the problem by letting it happen. But for most of this country we are free to travel without having to present papers, the major exceptions being you need a license to operate a motor vehicle on the roads and the TSA demands your papers to fly.
Otherwise there is no obligation at all to even carry ID, let alone have to present it frequently.
And how are you going to pay for all the engine replacements? Assuming you can just replace the engines and don't need to re-work the entire drive train for these Unicorn powered cars. Just tack on another couple trillion dollars of debt and let the taxpayers try to pay for it?
Anecdotally I've found that the worst drivers are those driving those smaller sportier cars who tend to think they can just zip through traffic without warning or signals using their speed and small size as a safety blanket, They don't flow with traffic but try to force their way through it but often fail to anticipate upcoming traffic or turns. They don't worry about reacting to unexpected actions by other drivers because they are the ones making the unexpected actions. Most importantly they think they can react faster than they actually can, but do usually manage to escape the accidents they cause by cutting off other vehicles, forcing the other drivers to slam on their brakes and thus causing accidents.
People who know how to drive know to they need to fear the idiots in small cars who can't obey the rules of the road.
--Dirk
Slashdot Mirror
But that would require the company to show cause for revoking the lease. Said cause requires an illegal act as in your example of the printer trying to print money. Making your own guns is not illegal or even of questionable legality. It's a long standing practice with solid legal footing.
Again the company is breaking the lease without legal cause. I know they'll get away with it because I'm sure that somewhere in the fine print is a clause that allows the company to break the lease because the lessee has consumed dihydrogen monoxide. But it's still wrong, and if the lessee can't just skip on a lease (assuming the equipment is returned in full working condition) why can the company?
Not grey at all. The BATFE has the authority to regulate firearms, NOT the designs or plans for firearms. You can order 80% kits where 80% of the machining is done, you just have to drill a few more holes. You can buy or trade cnc mill CAD files for firearms today. It's legal, the ATF say's it's legal (as long as it's not a NFA weapon you want to make), and it's widely done already, this just moves it to a new medium, but does not change a single thing about the law allowing you to make your own firearms.
Oh I understand how broadly the commerce clause is abused. But perhaps you are looking at the Fed's failure to act in the wrong light. I think they've failed to challenge the laws because such a challenge has the potential to cost the Feds a ton of control. But by ignoring the actions of two very conservative states with small populations they can 1: claim challenging the two states isn't worth the bother and 2: avoid the potential of a SCOTUS decision striking down the excessive abuses of the Commerce clause.
The left dodged a bullet when Justice Roberts gave them an out on the ACA(aka Obama Care.) The ruling you cited regarding wheat was decided by a very liberal court, which was entirely under the thumb of the Administration. At the time what Roosevelt wanted the court ruled because he promised to stack the court if they didn't give him what he wanted. He pointed out that there is no legally set maximum size for the court and he promised to appoint enough judges to get the rulings he wanted if the court then seated didn't comply with his wishes.
The current court would most likely rule very differently on that original case, and the last thing anyone in DC wants is that case or one like it revisited.
Mostly correct but you are incorrect about giving away. Any form of transfer of ownership to another individual is a transfer and at that point the weapon must be registered and serialized. However there are methods of obtaining legal transferable serial numbers. If it's going across a state line you have to go the expensive federal route, but if it's within the state, you may be able to obtain a state serial at little expense (depending on the state).
You are legally able to make just about any non-NFA weapon for your own use, but any transfer of that weapon to another individual is illegal until you get it registered, regardless of cost of transfer. Now this means transfer as in selling, trading or giving it to another individual for them to own. You can lend your firearm without breaking the law, just make sure you both know to clearly state that the weapon is only on loan, not actually given, sold or gifted.
But this does beg the question, transfer is illegal, you transfer it you get prosecuted (in theory). But what about when you die, they can't prosecute you then. And as long as you put something that looks like a serial number on the weapon, the individual who inherits the weapon has broken no law. The law states it's illegal to receive or possess a weapon you didn't manufacture your self if the weapon has no serial number on it. So put a serial number on it even and leave it to your kids.
Nope, what he was offering are not kits but plans/designs to allow those with the equipment to manufacture firearms. Something that is already legal and quite common in the metal working community. It's not illegal or even questionable to sell or share plans and blue prints. And it's not illegal or even questionable to build your own off of those plans. Plans are just that plans, without the equipment and knowhow said plans are not going to result in a firearm. But even if they do result in a home made firearm, that's still a legal activity. Regardless of how you got the plans, it's the actual firearm that would be in question, not the instructions.
What is questionable is the grounds on which this company violated a contract with no solid legal basis for doing so. The Feds hadn't said word one about it because until someone transfers (gives or sells) a home made firearm without a manufacturer's license there is no crime being committed in the manufacture, possession or use of said home made firearm. You can make all the guns you want for your own use as long as you retain legal ownership of the firearm. You just cannot legally transfer one without a license or at least a registered serial number (there are methods for obtaining a serial number to enable transfer of the firearm at a later date).
Nothing illicit about it. It is 100% legal to make your own firearms. Federal law only comes into play when you wish to transfer the firearm to another individual (sell). At least two states (Utah and Montana) have authorized in-state only firearms that do not need any federal paperwork or serial number if made for and sold only in state.
i.e. if it does not cross state borders it does not enter interstate commerce and thus the Feds have no authority to regulate, as their authority to regulate was imposed via the commerce clause.
There is already a good sized community of metal workers who make their own guns, they share plans and designs just as this group planned to do, and then each individual can make his own fully legal firearm. This just moved it to another group of hobbyists.
If their armed with stingers you can send 10,000 of them and nobody will care. A Stinger is an anti-aircraft weapon designed to burst a cloud of shrapnel into the thin skin of an aircraft. The faint pitter patter of bb's hitting the side of the Carrier won't bother anyone. At least use relevant weapons in your attack scenario. You do mention torpedoes. And torpedoes would be a big risk, but those are rather hefty and specific weapons, easily identified before hand and dealt with before they even get into launch position. And don't discount the classified max speed of our carriers in getting out of range of such small motorboats, while the escorts and defensive aircraft enjoy the turkey shoot.
But good luck using your submarine to provide disaster support by providing medical care and transportation. (ie Indonesia after the Tsunami) Good luck using your submarine to find a mobile target and take him out without laying waste to an entire city with your nukes. A sub full of nukes is a great deterrent, that's why we also have a fleet of those, but they are no where near as versatile as a Carrier.
Cruise Missiles are great if all you want the ship to be able to do is destroy buildings, vehicles and people. If you want to be able to provide CAS and CAP, fly rescue missions, escort combat and non-combat vessels and so on, you need manned vehicles. Automation is great but there is still a great need for a self aware thinking pilot who can evaluate and monitor a situation rather than just flying in and blowing up the target. How about drones you say? Well that works until the enemy puts up manned fighters, drones don't do well in dogfights against manned aircraft, and remote piloting introduces signal delays that are fatal in combat.
Assassinations refers to political leaders, i.e. killing a country's president because we know the next in line is more willing to work with us. Bin Laden was not a political leader of any country, he was a terrorist, thus not protected by the executive order prohibiting Assassinations. There is a distinct difference and a reason for the difference.
I agree, I was able to hack my way through the classes needed in my CS program but it was obvious my skills were more on the hardware, and networking side of the house. My code was always clunky and barely capable and took much more work than others. Not that I didn't try, but coding just wasn't where my brain worked.
Okay you are more familiar with the actual printer being targeted than I. And you are most likely correct in that I overstated it's self replication ability, but if so, those hardware store parts are not easily identifiable as parts of or even for said printer. And thus the point and goal of the WikiWeapons group still stands as does the legality of what they are doing.
You buy the printer and print many of the components plus the plans and share them with me so I can get into 3D printing. I take the plans and go to the hardware store and buy the remaining parts needed as well as the print materials needed for the printer. I go home and build the printer using the plans. I then duplicate the printer components and plans and share them with my friends.
Then at some future random time I d/l the firearm file and start printing copies of the firearm. Current materials technologies mean the weapons will most likely be single shot, but I can print as many as I want. As long as I don't sell or give them away I have broken no law.
Oh and the ATF even states that according to the Gun Control Act of 1968, the requirement to place a serial on a firearm does not apply to anyone making a gun for their own use.
For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.
Found on this FAQ
While they are doing initial design on a higher grade printer, they are actually targeting a printer model that is 100% capable of duplicating itself (I can't recall the name and am too lazy to look it up, go read the weaponwiki site for full details.) Thus commercial safeguards will fail because the controls can't work. When I can print a printer for each of my friends and they in turn can print one for each of their friends, and so on. And then we can print the firearm model of our choice. It's a limited version of the Star Trek Replicator concept, if I can replicate anything (including the parts to build more replicators) the need for commerce or the ability to regulate it is limited at best.
Further as long as these firearms are only printed for the person's own use, they do not enter into interstate commerce and are thus outside the federal regulatory powers. Thus no need for serial number, no registration with ATF, nada. People will get in trouble when they try to sell or even share these guns, but as long as thy only share the printer components and the data files, no federal regulation is currently applicable.
And how is this different from nearly every other free app out there? They all want universal access to your device. Non-story here.
Oh I see em, I've yet to hit one because I do see them. I constantly watch for them because so many of them do drive like idiots, thinking their zippy little cars can weave through traffic with impunity. Most smaller cars don't do this but enough do (usually driven by young males) do and thus require maximum attention.
Oh and more importantly you've missed the real point of my post. That the GP's personal anecdote has zero credibility because I can cite one exactly opposite to it.
Actually the only thing rare about voter fraud is convictions because it's nearly impossible to catch in the act, unless a poll worker happens to know the person the fraudulent voter is claiming to be. So yes it's true that convictions and even just arrests for vote fraud are rare, such fraud has a long and storied history in this country and needs to be limited.
Every State has a state Issued ID card (usually available for free) that is fully sufficient for voting. A DL isn't required, just a gov issued photo ID (Military ID's and Passport cards also work).
IC 34-28-5-3 Detention Sec. 3. Whenever a law enforcement officer believes in good faith that a person has committed an infraction or ordinance violation, the law enforcement officer may detain that person for a time sufficient to: (1) inform the person of the allegation; (2) obtain the person's: (A) name, address, and date of birth; or (B) driver's license, if in the person's possession; and (3) allow the person to execute a notice to appear. As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.24.
and
IC 34-28-5-3.5 Refusal to identify self Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's: (1) name, address, and date of birth; or (2) driver's license, if in the person's possession; to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.
There are two options and the DL isn't required, it's just an option, if it's in the person's possession.
See Wikipedia for a list of the Stop and Identify states and links to their relevant code. Mississippi is NOT on the list.
They have to have RAS (Reasonable articulable suspicion) of your involvement in a crime, and the detaining officer isn't the one who gets to decide what is reasonable. Oh he can detain you but it's the judge who will determine if he was right or wrong.
Thank you for not buckling under and defending our rights. It was inconvenient, but only by standing up to them are we going to get the judges pissed enough to order them to stop these illegal detentions.
And did you take the police to court for violating your 4th amendment rights? If not then you are part of the problem by letting it happen. But for most of this country we are free to travel without having to present papers, the major exceptions being you need a license to operate a motor vehicle on the roads and the TSA demands your papers to fly.
Otherwise there is no obligation at all to even carry ID, let alone have to present it frequently.
And how are you going to pay for all the engine replacements? Assuming you can just replace the engines and don't need to re-work the entire drive train for these Unicorn powered cars. Just tack on another couple trillion dollars of debt and let the taxpayers try to pay for it?
It simply ain't gonna happen.
Anecdotally I've found that the worst drivers are those driving those smaller sportier cars who tend to think they can just zip through traffic without warning or signals using their speed and small size as a safety blanket, They don't flow with traffic but try to force their way through it but often fail to anticipate upcoming traffic or turns. They don't worry about reacting to unexpected actions by other drivers because they are the ones making the unexpected actions. Most importantly they think they can react faster than they actually can, but do usually manage to escape the accidents they cause by cutting off other vehicles, forcing the other drivers to slam on their brakes and thus causing accidents. People who know how to drive know to they need to fear the idiots in small cars who can't obey the rules of the road. --Dirk