5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against 3-D printed gun organization

[il.bill]

Ran across this article on the arstechnica.com website.

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. 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.

Here is a link to the article: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/court-groups-3d-printer-gun-files-must-stay-offline-for-now/

 

[Devonai]

So what are they going to do when the files show up on the Dark Web anyway? Prosecute Defense Distributed under ITAR or something? I hope they have their files locked up tight.

 

[Ryanxia]

FTA:

However, one member of the 5th Circuit, District Judge Edith Jones, directly disagreed with her colleagues. In a scathing dissent, she called it an "irrational representation" of the export regulations. She also described the government’s actions as "pure content-based regulation."

She wrote:

In sum, it is not at all clear that the State Department has any concern for the First Amendment rights of the American public and press. Indeed, the State Department turns freedom of speech on its head by asserting, "The possibility that an Internet site could also be used to distribute the technical data domestically does not alter the analysis…." The Government bears the burden to show that its regulation is narrowly tailored to suit a compelling interest. It is not the public’s burden to prove their right to discuss lawful, non-classified, non-restricted technical data.

 

[Zoogster]

This is essentially a removal of the First Amendment as a result of technological complications.

They are in essence saying just the knowledge is illegal, similar to banning a book on building guns that are illegal for average citizens to actually build.

Previously that was considered protected free speech, now the reality of regular people who are not knowledgeable craftsmen being able to make use of that free speech scares them so much they are willing to remove free speech.




Ultimately that is the only true way to protect the Right to Bear Arms I am sadly realizing. To create designs that are effective modern guns which normal people could build out of common materials with limited required skill.
Pro Gun victories get overturned after years long battles to win them, and politics has turned against citizens of most nations that used to have the ability to bear modern arms. Since the 1980s Gun Rights around the world have taken a sharp dive and the US is one of the exceptions. I think such things are the best way to hedge our bets.


We need some semi auto rifle designs with the simplicity of the m3 grease gun.

I recall a guy in England, Luty, that made some similar submachinegun designs which really annoyed the government. He died of cancer at a really young age at the height of government's annoyance.
Wonder if his death was even natural and he was not subjected to toxins to give him his disease.



People able to make their own effective modern firearms with technology that does not allow the government to stop it by cracking down on a specific part is what really preserves freedom of arms.
Which is what is really under attack here, and what Defense Distributed represents to the government.


When your population can make effective modern fighting weapons that rival what government is using, which today in firearms primarily means a centerfire semi/select auto rifle, then the state's authority and means of controlling who can wield effective force is removed.
It once again means people can turn plowshares into swords when they wish.
So they will step all over the First Amendment if it means not having to see the 2nd Amendment fully realized.

 

[Frank Ettin]

We need to base discussion of a court opinion on the opinion, not on a news article. someone is free to start a new thread discussing this case if he can provide a link to the actual Fifth Circuit opinion.