Target Sports

Court: 3D printer gun files, national security interest trumps free speech.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 5, 2012
    18,591
    96
    HK
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-printer-gun-files-must-stay-offline-for-now/


    [FONT]A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday against Defense Distributed, the Texas organization that promotes 3D-printed guns, in a lawsuit that it brought last year against the State Department.[/FONT]
    [FONT]In a 2-1 decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was not persuaded that Defense Distributed’s right to free speech under the First Amendment outweighs national security concerns. [/FONT]
    [FONT]The majority concluded:[/FONT]
    Ordinarily, of course, the protection of constitutional rights would be the highest public interest at issue in a case. That is not necessarily true here, however, because the State Department has asserted a very strong public interest in national defense and national security. Indeed, the State Department’s stated interest in preventing foreign nationals—including all manner of enemies of this country—from obtaining technical data on how to produce weapons and weapon parts is not merely tangentially related to national defense and national security; it lies squarely within that interest.
     

    Mikewood

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 8, 2011
    2,159
    66
    Houston
    Awesome. 3D printed gun parts are scary even though most gun designs predate 3D printers and most WWII open bolt machine guns can be made in an average auto repair shop?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    jrbfishn

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 9, 2013
    28,351
    96
    south of killeen
    Wonder why the lawsuit was not filed under 2A.
    Neither amendment has an exception for national security though. If national security trumps the first amendment, it can be used to nulify all the others. But then again, they do that anyway.

    from an idgit coffeeholic
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,727
    96
    hill co.
    I read the ruling as "Ordinarily the protection of constitutional rights of the highest priority, but in this case it makes the government uncomfortable".


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,727
    96
    hill co.
    That, and I don't believe the 2A has to do with transfer of information and ideas. 1A is a better fit for this case, IMO.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    jrbfishn

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 9, 2013
    28,351
    96
    south of killeen
    You have a point.
    But I still fail to see how a judge thinks this a national security issue. If you made an opperational frame, a manufacturing issue, but not security.
    A plastic gun, so what. The bullets alone would set off a metal detector at almost any security check point.
    You are right. It is bullshit. Just an excuse to use the security excuse.
    from an idgit coffeeholic
     
    Last edited:

    TheDan

    deplorable malcontent scofflaw
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Nov 11, 2008
    27,759
    96
    Austin - Rockdale
    They think it's a national security issue because it undermines their control on the populace. A 3d printer file is just information. They are telegraphing their intentions by saying this information is too dangerous to be freely distributed by the public. The implications of this should be clear...

    Leads me to think of this thread again. Where is the fucking line?
    https://www.texasguntalk.com/forums...-no-confiscation-you-will-hand-them-over.html
     

    Lunyfringe

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 22, 2017
    1,402
    96
    Canton, TX
    Update: http://joshblackman.com/blog/2018/0...ch-settlement-in-defense-distributed-lawsuit/

    Settlement includes:
    Significantly, the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber – including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military.

    This is VERY good news... so much winning lately.

    “Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called ‘weapons of war,’ and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort.
     

    Lunyfringe

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 22, 2017
    1,402
    96
    Canton, TX

    Moonpie

    Omnipotent Potentate for hire.
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 4, 2013
    24,222
    96
    Gunz are icky.
    BDE6AFAB-BC67-477F-937D-C126C0C4519E.jpeg
     

    pronstar

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 2, 2017
    10,573
    96
    Dallas
    Wow, lets hope this sets precedent to overturn the assault on so-called assault weapons.

    Seems to me, this renders such bans as nothing more than bans on scary-looking guns.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     
    Top Bottom