20 states take aim at 3D gun company, sue to get files off the Internet

a reply to: howtonhawky

i will say that i do believe that gloc's are not metal guns.

We dont care about what you "believe", youre wrong. Walk down to the gun store sometime and actually have someone educate you.

Stating your opinion doesnt make it fact.

a reply to: howtonhawky

do the site a favor and do not bring your crap in my direction ever again.

Youre on a public forum, if you level accusations, be prepared to be debated. If you cant handle it, then do the site and your emotions a favor and dont engage.

you are non nonsensical and can not follow logic and you are here to undermine us as a whole.

You project more than anyone else I have ever seen on this forum.

all your post are way off base and you over and over have proven to spout nonsense that does not relate to what you are replying too.

I have yet to read any of this posters responses to you that couldnt be backed up with facts and a 2 second google search.

Yours on the other hand are completely wrong in almost every case.

Wompwomp

A federal judge has issued a restraining order on the release of the 3D printer files.
abcnews.go.com...

originally posted by: Phage
A federal judge has issued a restraining order on the release of the 3D printer files.
abcnews.go.com...

Didnt the supreme court already solve this issue?

Im not completely up to speed on this one.

a reply to: Whatthedoctorordered

Didnt the supreme court already solve this issue?

To what case do you refer?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Whatthedoctorordered

Didnt the supreme court already solve this issue?

To what case do you refer?

This case with the 3D gun printing, apparently they refused to hear the case and threw it out. Looks like it will be brought back again and they will have to.

a reply to: Whatthedoctorordered

This case with the 3D gun printing, apparently they refused to hear the case and threw it out.

I'm not familiar with that case. Who was the plaintiff?

a reply to: Phage

More info

And yet some more

More

Its a bit of a back and forth it looks like, there are mutiple facets to the whole thing it seems.

a reply to: Whatthedoctorordered

Nothing about the Supreme Court?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Whatthedoctorordered

Nothing about the Supreme Court?

Second link, about halfway down

The Western District of Texas court denied the request, and Defense Distributed appealed that ruling to the 5th Circuit Federal Court, which also denied the request.
Defense Distributed then appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined to hear arguments on the case on 8 January 2018, essentially upholding the 5th Circuit Court’s decision.

a reply to: Whatthedoctorordered

Got it.

So the answer to your original question is no, the Supreme Court did not settle anything. But the State Department settled the ITAR case out of court.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
No need face.

I am done with you.

Op please accept my apologies for the mess.

No apology needed.

Basically I see it as a little family squabble.

Maybe it's a matter of perspective. Maybe it's a matter of opinion. It's just the expected bizarre interpersonal dynamics of all dysfunctional families.


-dex

a reply to: Whatthedoctorordered

Thanks for the Snopes link.

That really provides a lot more information about the history of the case. I found this section interesting:

Though this case was brought to the courts with the help of a Second Amendment advocacy group, Volokh said he feels Defense Distributed’s case is primarily a First Amendment issue:

[Cody Wilson] is helping promote Second Amendment rights of others, but it’s not clear he would have strong enough interest in their rights. And it’s also not clear that the restriction would burden their rights that much under existing Second Amendment case law. So my suspicion is that the Second Amendment argument wasn’t something that the federal government viewed as particularly impressive.

On the other hand, the First Amendment argument, that’s the one that the four judges on the Fifth Circuit were particularly moved by. And I think it’s quite a plausible argument about Defense Distributed’s own rights. It says we want to put up information … and you are stopping us from doing that and stopping us from communicating to other Americans about this sort of thing. So that’s a pretty serious argument.

emphasis mine

And it appears that Defense Distributed is following that advice:

Preemptively on Sunday, Defense Distributed sued the attorney general of New Jersey and the city attorney of Los Angeles to stop those lawsuits, largely on First Amendment grounds.

emphasis mine
arstechnica

It seems to me that by Defense Distributed basing its defense on First Amendment rights, this case has gotten a lot more complex. I think it is much more likely for the SCOTUS to take up the case this time.

The federal government has several laws on the books about what kind of information can be published. The Internet is a relatively new medium for information distribution. So, the Supreme Court needs to set some kind of precedent regarding free speech online.

-dex

Here is a screen capture of the download page for Defcad.com:
full size image

According to the cnet article:

Not that it will necessarily stop the blueprints from spreading -- though Defense Distributed originally planned to publish them tomorrow, Aug. 1, the organization confirmed to CNET that they were actually published on Friday, July 27. We downloaded one, and according to the current counts at Defcad.com, over 20,000 such blueprints have been downloaded already.

It goes without saying that those files are already in a torrent somewhere.

The cat is out of the bag...They have spilled the beans...They have shown their cards...

I suppose we'll find out eventually whether it's even going to be legal to have the files. Some members of Congress are already proposing legislation to ban plastic guns and requiring serial numbers on all firearms, including homemade weapons.

-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

I suppose we'll find out eventually whether it's even going to be legal to have the files. Some members of Congress are already proposing legislation to ban plastic guns and requiring serial numbers on all firearms, including homemade weapons.

Time out for perspective. Here is what the NRA has to say:

“Many anti-gun politicians and members of the media have wrongly claimed that 3-D printing technology will allow for the production and widespread proliferation of undetectable plastic firearms. Regardless of what a person may be able to publish on the Internet, undetectable plastic guns have been illegal for 30 years. Federal law passed in 1988, crafted with the NRA’s support, makes it unlawful to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive an undetectable firearm.”

NRA [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

In other words, the NRA does not want you to make your own firearms, they want you to buy them from the businesses they represent. Why, then, is Defense Distributed making these 3-D printer programs available? Because their core business is making the metal parts and the milling machines necessary to rifle the barrels to make guns effective:

ghostgunner.net...

In other words, this has nothing to do with the First or Second Amendment. It is a trade dispute. Defense Distributed is threatening the small arms monopoly that the NRA represents. That is why the NRA supports serial numbers, even on home made weapons.

I just do not see anyway the gov. can completely stop the file sharing of such info.

The 2nd. amendment of bare arms includes making of arms as per the ole definition and texas has long standing court rulings that are in favor of peeps being able to make guns legally even though most other states have ruled against such. Not only to carry but to make responsibly. So many angles to this i predict that this is the big one and it has been brewing behind the scenes for some time.



for tha fam

a reply to: DexterRiley

We went over this same case in the 90's essentially. PGP was classified by the government as a weapon and sale of the code was banned. It won by making a free speech case.

The same should hold true here.

Edit: I am not pro gun, I would actually love to see them banned. However, I'm also very pro speech, and that wins out here. Information should not be censored, no matter what people can use that information for.

originally posted by: Whatthedoctorordered
a reply to: howtonhawky

i will say that i do believe that gloc's are not metal guns.

We dont care about what you "believe", youre wrong. Walk down to the gun store sometime and actually have someone educate you.

Stating your opinion doesnt make it fact.

Well
facts are facts and you should care.

another member spouting nonsensical feelings without facts.

just to clear it up for tha last time it was said that if crimes were happening with plastic guns then the msm would report it.

That was a nothing statement without any facts behind it.

my reply which is 100% factual is that glocks are not metal..that is a fact even if i used the term i believe glocs are not metal

i could go further and show the numerous crimes that have been done with completely plastic guns and also remind that several deaths have happened cause some kid is holding a plastic water gun.

the point stands that 3d printers are mucho capable of creating 100% non metallic guns capable of firing rounds that are fatal to humans.

Just because they start out with a computer program that incorporates the use of some metal in these firts releases does not negate the facts.

here are some plastic compression springs
www.leespring.com...

and here is a link to nonmetal nails similar to a firing pin
raptornails.com...


The truth is that a completely plastic gun is 100% doable and that fact collides with homeland security and the foundation of the patriot act and freedom in the usa is being tested to the max.

giving up freedom for security is a failure of liberty

a reply to: DJW001

imho

The nra is indeed responsible for the majority of gun regulations.

It can be argued either way that we would be better off with or without them but they have had a major hand in removing many freedoms we had.

a reply to: howtonhawky

OK

Glocks have metal

Fact



Now prove me wrong