It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DOJ, Second Amendment Foundation Reach Settlement In Defense Distributed Lawsuit

page: 1
24

log in

join
share:
+6 more 
posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Source


SAF and Defense Distributed had filed suit against the State Department under the Obama administration, challenging a May 2013 attempt to control public speech as an export under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), a Cold War-era law intended to control exports of military articles.

Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint.

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.
Emphasis mine

This is a significant acknowledgment by the US government regarding the nature of most weapons in the United States currently in civilian hands. Calling them weapons of war has always been the emotional trigger used by anti-gun politicians and commentators in furtherance of their agenda. Those of us who actually know something about firearms have always contended that such weapons cannot be classified as such because they physically do not perform like military small arms. Further, that all such firearms built after 1986 are banned from public purchase, and all the automatic weapons built prior to 1986 require a tax stamp, a bunch of paperwork, and an extensive background check with regular renewals for the license to own those weapons.

Current semi-automatic riles and other such weapons do not fall into this category as 'semi-automatic' is a mechanical term that applies to the vast majority of firearms, and that to ban semi-automatic weapons, would be to blatantly violate the 2nd Amendment.




posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Good News indeed, vxn! First bump if I'm lucky.
The last quip wasn't about the stocks btw... I personally
would prefer anyway to better focus the ammunition than
jump the frog all over the 50 footer.

Even better will be this recent trend toward calling the
black scary short guys "weapons of WAR" because we both
know they weren't even designed for the extra fizz of NATO
rounds, half of the civvie AR's.. and as far as I know no reg-
ular infantry outfit in my memory ever got issued pure semi
fire(s). Color guard? maybe

PS Thanks again for the Kimber ad.. it was love at first front
sight and the 1911 is she totally outa my league sigh
Now if we can school the legislators politely but effectively
on the real definition of an assault weapon



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: derfreebie

Wasn't my ad.

Looks like my browser blocks it.



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 09:13 PM
link   
That's the double whammy.



Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D filesand other information at issue.




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.


Two BIG ARSE loses for gunphobes.



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Good victory for free speech, I don't see why those documents cannot be public domain when we can own the product itself.

And equally good news on the classification clarification. Good news for two reasons!



posted on Jul, 10 2018 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: derfreebie




Color guard? maybe

Just as an FYI - "Color Guard" uses models.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kharron
..., I don't see why those documents cannot be public domain when we can own the product itself...


I'm guessing it requires some thought, skill, and determination to actually create the blueprints if you will. I guess they just wanted an extra step before someone can mad produce them.

But yea, 3d printing has really revolutionized a lot of things, laws not so much yet...

I can't stop thinking about how it would be neat if we as consumers bought only raw materials and blueprints, then printed all our goods at home.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Yes, that's a very significant admission by the government, one that would likely have major implications if/when a so-called 'assault weapons' ban ever reaches the Supreme Court. The whole argument in favor of the AWB is based around the idea that the weapons banned are 'weapons of war', yet if the government admits this is not true, then that argument really starts coming unglued. Without that, they're just semi-automatic rifles, which are not fundamentally different from semi-automatic handguns and that are Constitutionally protected according to the 2008 Heller decision.

edit on 11-7-2018 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

That is precisely the point, though you did a better job of tying it together.




posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Nice find and couldn't agree more.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Doesn't seem like too many are reporting on this and Its actually a huge effing story.



posted on Jul, 11 2018 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Well FACTS are inconvenient for the gun violence crowd.

Which means they've been lying since the Clinton era, and subsequent bans, and repeat bans.

Also.

It should open up the entire unconstitutionality of the background check.

Of course not sure (insert whoever) will push the advantage.



posted on Jul, 15 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I missed this on the first run. I will have to keep it around in case of emergencies. (some idiot starts to cry about weapons of war)

Good news.



new topics

top topics



 
24

log in

join