Gun rights activists post plans for 3D firearms after judge's order blocking them
Source: NBC News
A coalition of gun rights advocates challenged a federal judge's order temporarily barring a Texas company from publishing blueprints on the web to make untraceable 3D-printed guns by publishing similar blueprints itself on Tuesday, saying such publications were protected by the First Amendment.
After years of litigation, U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik issued a temporary restraining order earlier in the day blocking Defense Distributed of Austin, Texas, from relaunching on Wednesday with blueprints for plastic firearms that can be "printed" by machines using computer-assisted design, or CAD.
Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/gun-rights-activists-post-plans-3d-firearms-after-judge-s-n896411
This could be very interesting to watch work it's way through the courts.
jayschool2013
(2,312 posts)Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)Igel
(35,320 posts)that these aren't the first 3D printer gun plans to be posted.
Perhaps these are the first with a corporation or company behind it as a foe?
Owning 3D guns is already illegal, I think I also heard.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,924 posts)Provided it can be detected by metal detectors, they are legal. Most designs require some metal parts. Even the all plastic single shot pistol plan calls for a 6oz metal insert. Now, people making them could not include the metal inserts, but they could be risking failure of the gun when fired, if the metal was being used structurally.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)if it complies with the "Undetectable Firearms Act" and other federal firearms legislation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undetectable_Firearms_Act
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)It can easily be left out of the construction but is there just to comply with the law.
NickB79
(19,253 posts)The other guns mentioned still use metal barrels, receivers, etc.
And then there's the problem of metal bullets and cartridges (though there is partially-plastic ammo out there).
The plans for these guns has been online for many years already; the files have been circulating on the dark Web despite court orders to restrict their releases because they were temporarily available when first created.
pazzyanne
(6,556 posts)is an action taken by a "very fine" group of American "patriots" going against a judicial decision? I might believe a group of American treason weasels.
NickB79
(19,253 posts)Like I said, this will be an interesting court case to watch.
pazzyanne
(6,556 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)And not just Republicans, sadly.
Previous important court cases involving the dissemination of "dangerous munitions" information and ITAR...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_v._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junger_v._Daley
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)* establishment or exercise of religion.
* freedom of speech.
* freedom of the press.
* peacible assembly.
* petitioning the Government for a redress.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)Was it Free speech when Julius and Ethel Rosenberg transmitted nuclear weapon designs?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)They were found guilty in a Federal Court, found guilty, and paid the price for their treason.
The Mouth
(3,150 posts)It wasn't "Treason", as that requires a declared state of war (in other words it is technically impossible to use outside of a war declared by Congress, so there hasn't been a case of Treason since the end of WW2; a fact of great amusement to this Political Science major as both right and left have used the term in ignorant rage for 60+ years). It was "Espionage".
ET Awful
(24,753 posts)The answer is indisputably yes. There is a vast difference between printing information on how to do something and actually doing that thing.
The Anarchist's Cookbook has plans for many types of bombs, it is considered protected speech.
There are hundreds of books on hacking into computer systems. Free speech.
Either you value free speech or you don't. Would you rather it be referred to as free press since it's published information?
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,489 posts)Thank you. If it were possible for me to award you with some sort of prize over the interwebs, I would do so.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,489 posts)Making the plans available is a form of expression.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,489 posts)Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,489 posts)Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989),[1], was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant Gregory Lee Johnson's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Johnson was represented by attorneys David D. Cole and William Kunstler.
....
The Supreme Court's decision
The opinion of the Court came down as a controversial 54 decision, with the majority opinion delivered by William J. Brennan, Jr. and Justices Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy joining Brennan, with Kennedy also writing a concurrence.
The Court first considered the question of whether the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected non-speech acts, since Johnson was convicted of flag desecration rather than verbal communication, and, if so, whether Johnson's burning of the flag constituted expressive conduct, which would permit him to invoke the First Amendment in challenging his conviction.
The First Amendment specifically disallows the abridgment of "speech," but the court reiterated its long recognition that its protection does not end at the spoken or written word. This was concluded based on the 1931 case Stromberg v. California, which ruled the display of a red flag as speech, and the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which ruled the wearing of a black armband as speech.
The Court rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea," but acknowledged that conduct may be "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments." In deciding whether particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play, the court asked whether "an intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it."
The Court found that, under the circumstances, Johnson's burning of the flag "constituted expressive conduct, permitting him to invoke the First Amendment." "Occurring as it did at the end of a demonstration coinciding with the Republican National Convention, the expressive, overtly political nature of the conduct was both intentional and overwhelmingly apparent." The court concluded that, while "the government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word," it may not "proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements."
Texas had conceded, however, that Johnson's conduct was expressive in nature. Thus, the key question considered by the Court was "whether Texas has asserted an interest in support of Johnson's conviction that is unrelated to the suppression of expression."
At oral argument, the state defended its statute on two grounds: first, that states had a compelling interest in preserving a venerated national symbol; and second, that the state had a compelling interest in preventing breaches of the peace.
As to the "breach of the peace" justification, however, the Court found that "no disturbance of the peace actually occurred or threatened to occur because of Johnson's burning of the flag," and Texas conceded as much. The Court rejected Texas's claim that flag burning is punishable on the basis that it "tends to incite" breaches of the peace, citing the test from the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio that the state may only punish speech that would incite "imminent lawless action," finding that flag burning does not always pose an imminent threat of lawless action. The Court noted that Texas already punished "breaches of the peace" directly.
....
June 21, 2018 by NCC Staff
On June 21, 1989, a deeply divided United States Supreme Court upheld the rights of protesters to burn the American flag in a landmark First Amendment decision.
....
In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag at the Republican National Convention in Dallas. Officials in Texas arrested Johnson and convicted him of breaking a state law; he was sentenced to one year in prison and ordered to pay a $2,000 fine. ... In reaction to the Johnson decision, which only applied to the state of Texas, Congress passed an anti-flag burning law called the Flag Protection Act of 1989. But in 1990, the Court struck down that law as unconstitutional.
If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable, said Justice William Brennan.
The case remains controversial to the present day, and Congress has, as recently as 2006, attempted to amend the Constitution to prohibit flag desecration, with the effort failing by one vote in the Senate.
In one of his last public events, Scalia explained why he cast the deciding vote in the Johnson case, on the principal of a textual reading of the First Amendment. If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag, Scalia said at a November 2015 event in Philadelphia. But I am not king.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)"The Court rejected "the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled 'speech' whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea,"
QED
groundloop
(11,519 posts)It's my opinion that the idea of 'speech' has over the years morphed to something much different than what was intended in the Bill of Rights, having been manipulated by special interests.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,489 posts)They've been available for decades.
Or, buy one and read it in the privacy of your own home.
Amazon can fix you right up.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)You can even download it right to your computer after you pay.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,489 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 1, 2018, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)
"People who bought this also bought...."
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Do you regard porn as free speech?
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,489 posts)That doesn't mean I want to see it. If someone else does, though, that's his choice.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,489 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)In fact the Miller test makes it practically impossible to ban. Especially with contemporary community standards and artistic value.
3 Parts to the Test:
1 Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
2 Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[3] specifically defined by applicable state law,
3 Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[4]
DBoon
(22,369 posts)Navigation maps for maritime and aviation use for one.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Publisher of 'Hit Man' Manual Agrees to Settle Suit Over Triple Slaying
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/22/news/mn-39761
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,489 posts)First of all, it wasn't Loompanics Press.
Loompanics Unlimited was an American book seller and publisher specializing in nonfiction on generally unconventional or controversial topics. The topics in their title list included drugs, weapons, anarchism, sex, conspiracy theories, and so on. Many of their titles describe some kind of illicit or extralegal actions, such as Counterfeit I.D. Made Easy, while others are purely informative, like Opium for the Masses. Loompanics was in business for nearly 30 years. The publisher and editor was Michael Hoy.
Mike Hoy started Loompanics Unlimited in East Lansing, Michigan, in 1975. He later moved the business to Port Townsend, Washington, where his friend and fellow publisher R. W. Bradford had earlier located.
In January 2006, Loompanics announced that it was going out of business, and that it was selling off its inventory. In the spring of 2006, Paladin Press announced that it acquired the rights to 40 titles previously published or sold by Loompanics, including the works of Claire Wolfe, Eddie the Wire, and other popular Loompanics authors.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)is valid. And judges are judicial, not legislative, so they cant make law at all. All they do is interpret existing law.
If you feel the government, particularly judges, is taking too many powers, you do something like this as a confrontational, now what? What you gonna do?
One of the comments about this said, how many divisions does this judge command?
keithbvadu2
(36,829 posts)NRA supporters would rather have dead children than gun control.
To the gun industry, dead children are merely collateral damage/acceptable losses for gun industry profits and political donations.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/27/joe-the-plumber-guns_n_5397981.html
Joe The Plumber: Your Dead Kids Dont Trump My Constitutional Rights To Have Guns
The threat against profit for gun industry sales is another matter.
The gun source states and gun stores could lose some serious sales and smuggling would decrease.
Street sales prices would go down.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,489 posts)So, a judge is blocking a company from posting files that are already online. Its enacting a prior restraint against the spread of information that is already available to anyone. Amazing:
Link to tweet
POLITICS & POLICY
A Federal Judge Launches a Futile, Unconstitutional Effort to Block Blueprints for 3D-Printed Guns
By DAVID FRENCH
July 31, 2018 8:04 PM
If theres a hall of fame for futile, symbolic, and ultimately unconstitutional federal court orders, the temporary restraining order just issued in Seattle blocking Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation from posting blueprints for 3D-printed guns deserves at least a plaque, if not a full display. The courts order temporarily overturns a Trump administration legal settlement that reversed an Obama-era policy designed mainly to limit the spread of the relevant files abroad, not here at home. I love NPRs sardonic Twitter response:
Its unclear how the temporary order can be enforced. The plans were already placed online days ago and downloaded thousands of times and posted online elsewhere.
Link to tweet
....
pazzyanne
(6,556 posts)for my support for anything that is said there. I use these type of sites for perspective, not necessarily for fact. Just saying.
CanonRay
(14,104 posts)Anyone who kills someone with a normal gun can be charged with murder. What difference does it make if it's a plastic gun?
CanonRay
(14,104 posts)You cannot charge gun manufacturers with murder for making a gun. I'm saying charge those who published the plans with conspiracy to murder if someone is killed with one of these plastic guns.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)I think that it is a stretch.
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Is just a great big "Fuck You" to the advocates of Gun Control.
They are trying to prove that if you can print a gun, all Gun Control is useless, and shouldn't even be attempted.
I watched CBS News interview with the guy in Austin and the journalist stated he has a tombstone outside his office that has "American Gun Control" engraved on it.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,489 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)But I disagree with them. I am afraid little can be done to stop them.
Aristus
(66,388 posts)through metal detectors, the better to facilitate mass-murder...
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)See post 30.
Aristus
(66,388 posts)It happens so rarely in countries with comprehensive gun control that it is statistically negligible.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)They have no empathy or sympathy for anyone but themselves.
See the quote from Joe the Plumber earlier in the thread. That is a dead serious mindset with people like that.
braddy
(3,585 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,489 posts)I've heard that you're better off not following its instructions.
braddy
(3,585 posts)MicaelS
(8,747 posts)I later gave it away.
targetpractice
(4,919 posts)Welcome to the future.
These will be pirated, distributed on the dark web, etc. Remember what Naptster did to record sales? I don't see how the NRA will support this if they are gun sales lobby.
Watch for the NRA to suddenly support strict regulations of ammo and 3-D printer sales.
I remember when color copiers became so good that it was required that they install chips to prevent copying paper money. Expect the same here.
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)with choice of length and girth...
divert gun-idiots from penis substitute...back to penis itself
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)targetpractice
(4,919 posts)Theory: All new technology is driven by porn... Examples...
1) The printing press;
3) Magazines;
3) Stag films drove the sales of home Super 8mm projectors'
2) VHS won over Betamax because Sony wouldn't license to porn producers;
3) Dirty secret of ecommerce in the late 1990s... Advances in rapid credit card processing were driven by porn sites (eliminate delays);
4) Streaming formats in early 2000s... Steve Jobs wouldn't license QuickTime to porn producers... We got RealPlayer and Windows Media;
5) Sony learned the lesson and licensed Blu-Ray to porn producers...
Now we are entering an age of augmented reality, 3D printed stuff, etc... It's not surprise that the 3D printed penises are a thing.
christx30
(6,241 posts)for a reason. And its not so you can watch Solo in the bathroom.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)bah dum bum pssssh!
-app
targetpractice
(4,919 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)spike jones
(1,680 posts)Remember the scene in Hotel Rwanda where wood boxes are being uncrated and out pour hundreds of machetes for the citizens to use? This is then.
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)It is currently legal to assemble a firearm from scratch or parts for personal use. 3D printers and blueprints are another way to facilitate this and nothing to freak out about in my opinion. Besides, there is no way to stop this information.