Federal Judge Rules Against Trump Administration on 3-D Gun Blueprint Case (latimes.com) 418
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."
Another judge legislating from the bench (Score:4, Insightful)
What is so complicated about "[s]hall not be infringed?"
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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, i
Re:Another judge legislating from the bench (Score:5, 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.
Re:Another judge legislating from the bench (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Begs the question* is a gun 'buy back' a sale?
* Grammarian troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Giving it to your son would constitute transfer and would make both you and your son criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Except those regulations (from the Federal level) do not apply to one off builds.
Yes, there are some laws which prohibit what I could make in my garage (ie no machineguns).
That it's a recently made up political term to describe something which has been legal for ages?
Re: (Score:2)
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... [gunsholstersandgear.com] (not a legal source, a home gun maker site)
https://www.atf.gov/resource-c... [atf.gov] (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 de
Re: (Score:3)
And STILL you can't cite that regulation.
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... [slashdot.org]
Your second link actually confirms what I said, which you did here:
Ok...
And here I thought
Re: (Score:3)
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.... [fredericknewspost.com]
Building SBRs & supressors without first aquiring tax stamps is a big no no: http://gunsandrifles.com/2018/... [gunsandrifles.com]
Dude sells multiple undercover agents, sure doesn't sound like soly building them for perso
Re: (Score:3)
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 fun
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Another judge legislating from the bench (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
So, any state can legalize slavery and it will be legal because state rights outweigh the constitution?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another judge legislating from the bench (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Yep. They have tried to ban the Anarchists's Cookbook forever and keep getting slapped down.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.gov]
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: (Score:2)
Re:Another judge legislating from the bench (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't a Second Amendment case, it's First Amendment, very similar to Bernstein v US DoJ [google.com].
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: (Score:3)
Re: Another judge legislating from the bench (Score:2, Insightful)
A tyrannical President wouldn't be supporting the citizens right to arm themselves!
Re: (Score:2)
Because Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. never happened.
And keeping your grandpa's over under in the closet doesn't really count as "owning guns"
Re: (Score:3)
You've completely missed and should spend a few minutes on this excellent read: https://www.wired.com/story/de... [wired.com]
80% vs. 20% (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
It's been by go to link when trying to get people to understand how far out of the bottle the gun genie is.
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 p
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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 outsid
Re: Another judge legislating from the bench (Score:2)
You can make semi auto and automatic weapons if you can manufacture or convert them yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Another judge legislating from the bench (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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, b
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"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 (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [merriam-webster.com] 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 (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, 'genious', where did you get THAT incorrect piece of information? The militia of the United States [cornell.edu] 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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 w
Re: (Score:2)
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
DUMB! (Score:5, Informative)
You can make a shotgun out of two pieces of pipe and a nail.
Re:DUMB! (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They are called boomsticks. I saw a historical documentary about their invention when Lord Arthur found the Hero A. Williams.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
You were never a teenager?
Re:DUMB! (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:3, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re:I STILL don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
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... [wikipedia.org]
Too late (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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/... [wikipedia.org]
Th
Inflammatory article by a disingenuous author (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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 sig
Re: (Score:2)
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 at
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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, w
Re: (Score:2)
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
What a joke. (Score:2)
It's not like these are the first open source guns (Score:5, Interesting)
The AK-47 is way ahead of these on the open-source fire arm bandwagon. [wired.com] 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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 [aim.org] 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 [nytimes.com]
Reminds me of the PGP and DeCSS case (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Recipe: (Score:2)
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...
Doesn't matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
... 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.
Re:The Ninth Circus Strikes Again (Score:4, Informative)
29 apparently.. But not all of them are routinely overturned so not all have the red nose and floppy shoes.
Stupid Trope (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.