3D gun plans website suspends downloads

TheX

wo0t
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
44,890
Reaction score
111,851
Federal Judge Robert Lasnik issued a temporary restraining order on Tuesday "blocking (the) federal government from allowing distribution of downloadable 3D printed" guns.

So, I'm sure everyone is aware that Aug. 1st was supposed to be when the downloads became legal. I print a LOT of stuff and there is no way in hell I'm loading and firing a weapon that I printed. I think the people most worried about this have no idea how 3d printing works.
 

45WinMag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
8,244
Reaction score
18,738
So now judges are enforcing international treaties against US citizens? The publishing of gun files was never illegal (there was no Federal or state law involved). State Department was exercising prior restraint against Defense Distributed based on a faulty interpretation of ITAR (an international treaty, not a law). Usually when someone is threatened by a Federal agency, they back down. Instead, Defense Distributed sued. When it became apparent State Department was about to lose in court, they folded in order to protect other questionable ITAR provisions. I don't see what basis a judge has for issuing an injunction, since there is no law involved. This is a prime example of judicial overreach.

This is the equivalent of a judge saying although there is no law addressing your activity, I don't like it, therefore I declare it illegal.
 
Last edited:

Crotch

Cocaine Bear
Double Platinum Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
33,098
Reaction score
93,334
I don't care much about the ruling cause it doesn't mean a lot for right now other than a delay. I get the freedom of speech case in this, but I don't want anyone to have a printed gun. Ever. And I'm not anti gun. I'm also with X. I'd never fire one of these things.
 

45WinMag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
8,244
Reaction score
18,738
I have Defense Distributed's Ghost Gunner (a small CNC mill optimized for completing 80% firearm receivers). This product was developed in order to fund Defense Distributed's legal crusade against State Department, and has proven to be extremely popular. They can't keep up with orders.

This isn't just about 3D printed guns. The design that they released that was the basis for this entire State Department conniption fit was nothing more than a proof of concept, and was intended to ruffle feathers. Cody Wilson (founder of Defense Distributed) envisions a sort of "open source" online firearm community, where designs, files, development tools, and knowledge are freely traded and continuously adapted and improved. Sort of like a massive firearm version of "Luthier's Corner" with open source file sharing. It is intended to involve any means an individual could use to make a design - 3D printing, 3D metal sintering, CNC, etc. If you think this is just about making a 3D printed single-shot .22, you're missing the point.

I look forward to this eventually going live. This injunction is just a delay. It does nothing more than re-initiate the lawsuit, and State Department is going to lose. They wouldn't have folded otherwise, and now they are likely to get a judgement more extensive and damaging to ITAR than the settlement was.
 

45WinMag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
8,244
Reaction score
18,738
This is basically a repeat of State Department's attempts to suppress Pretty Good Privacy using ITAR back in the '90s. In fact, PGP was an inspiration to Cody Wilson. Like the developers of PGP intending to render government spying moot by making encryption strong and freely available, Wilson expresses an intent to make firearm regulation moot by making manufacturing easy and freely available. Technology outpaces law.

If this injunction stands, the likely outcome is going to be crippling to ITAR. This is a clear cut First Amendment case, and despite everybody screaming about "gunz!", the Second Amendment doesn't even come into play.
 

WaywerdSon

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2013
Messages
7,821
Reaction score
17,942
This is basically a repeat of State Department's attempts to suppress Pretty Good Privacy using ITAR back in the '90s. In fact, PGP was an inspiration to Cody Wilson. Like the developers of PGP intending to render government spying moot by making encryption strong and freely available, Wilson expresses an intent to make firearm regulation moot by making manufacturing easy and freely available. Technology outpaces law.

If this injunction stands, the likely outcome is going to be crippling to ITAR. This is a clear cut First Amendment case, and despite everybody screaming about "gunz!", the Second Amendment doesn't even come into play.
Freedom of speech is for sure the amendment in play here. Thiscase could havepretty serious implications in other areas as well. Once you begin censorship, it becomes easier and easier to restrict more and more speech. Look at what happed to college campuses. What used to be a place where one was encouraged to openly debate anything, there has been a concerted effort to squelch any opinion that is indissent from the majority. This didnt happen overnight, it was incremental. It will be a very bad day for liberty if this injunction stands for long
 

BRMarshall

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2015
Messages
400
Reaction score
412
This could be seen very much as a free speech issue. We have had people in the U.S. since before its inception who could turn raw materials into firearms, they're called gunsmiths. During WWII, the Soviets were putting together submachine guns - PPS43, long before the advent of the IC and 3D printing, with a minimum amount of stamped & machined parts. They were even manufactured in Leningrad during the Nazi siege with very limited resources. Humans are creative creatures. Unfortunately, if some psycho wants to hurt others, they will find a way. Some have even used rented trucks to murder crowds of people.

Indeed, it is the incremental erosion of individual liberty that poses the greatest threat to our individual freedom. I checked the FBI statistics several years ago (2011, I think was the last year data was available then). I believe firearms (of all types together) were fourth on the list for causes of homicide. Few people seem to be advocating a ban on hands and feet though?
 

45WinMag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
8,244
Reaction score
18,738
It will be a very bad day for liberty if this injunction stands for long

It's absurd that this judge gave merit to the idea that a handful of states have the authority to interpret the provisions of an international treaty and request enforcement of that interpretation by the courts. This is solely the authority of the Federal government through the State Department. The judge is ignoring the specific reservation of different authorities to the Federal and state governments. Absent an actual law, the states have no standing to petition the court in this manner. The Federal government (through the State Department) alone has standing to petition a court for enforcement of an international treaty against a citizen, and the State Department has conceded that it has no authority to enforce provisions of ITAR in violation of the First Amendment. I would say this judge is an idiot, but I suspect he is fully aware that his actions are unlawful and is doing it anyway because he has decided that his personal opinions should have force of law.

The judge's wrongdoing aside, this may be for the best with regard to ITAR. While the settlement was generally regarded as a win, some were disappointed that Defense Distributed didn't reject the offer and beat the State Department in court. Settlements don't create precedent and a judgement would likely go further to reign in ITAR. The settlement was an attempt by State Department to preserve as much of a flawed treaty as possible in the face of an impending court loss. Now the State Department and ITAR can take a more thorough beating, it will just take a little longer. The states who petitioned this judge may not have thought this through.
 

cooljuk

Transducer Producer
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,425
Reaction score
28,796
Attempting to stop file distribution is a joke. Ask Lars how successful his crusade against Napster was at preventing every college student from loading up their iPods and computers full of copyrighted music they don't own.

I'd wager to bet that the very file in question has been on The Pirate Bay and thousands of other sharing services the entire time this issue has been playing out.
 

Howard2k

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
24,828
Reaction score
44,811
There are people who I would really prefer not have firearms. This seems to make it easier for those people to have access to firearms.

I’m sure it’s not quite as easy as download, print, load, shoot of course. I wouldn’t want to be near one when it goes tits up that’s for sure.
 

Howard2k

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
24,828
Reaction score
44,811
btw - it's legal for non-felon US Citizens to make their own guns. So, does it really make a difference what tools someone uses to do it?

I can’t entirely disagree. I’m sure we all have a line somewhere. Hopefully. Hopefully we all have a line somewhere and don’t think they every man, woman, and child, should have unrestricted access to firearms.

I’m not horrifically offended at the idea either of the plans being public either. Just given the choice... as I said, there are people who I don’t want to have access.


I’m actually more interested to see how some members on my Facebook feed try to spin this one.
 

cooljuk

Transducer Producer
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
18,425
Reaction score
28,796
I don't think it's going to be a go-to source for criminals, personally.

3D printing anything is FAR from the easiest way to acquire or create that thing.

That applies to pickup bobbins, cell phone cases, a spork, a clock or a firearm.

A criminal 3D printing a gun to use in a crime would be like a common junkie growing a field of poppies just to get some heroin.
 

Howard2k

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2009
Messages
24,828
Reaction score
44,811
I don't think it's going to be a go-to source for criminals, personally.

3D printing anything is FAR from the easiest way to acquire or create that thing.

That applies to pickup bobbins, cell phone cases, a spork, a clock or a firearm.

A criminal 3D printing a gun to use in a crime would be like a common junkie growing a field of poppies just to get some heroin.


Criminals (street thugs for instance, but I realize there is limitation on scope) don’t need to know how to operate a 3D printer. They would just need to know someone who does. I don’t think this will lead to a new breed of criminal who knows AutoCAD, just that distribution channels would be utilized. So sure, that may take a little time, but it won’t be long.

I think that any lack of “success” of these firearms will be because of hardware failure. Not availability.

Moot now anyway since I’m pretty sure they are already in the open.
 

45WinMag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
8,244
Reaction score
18,738
A criminal 3D printing a gun to use in a crime would be like a common junkie growing a field of poppies just to get some heroin.

I think this is the best response I've seen to the hysterical people who seem to think that open availability of CAD/CAM files of firearms is suddenly going to have every gangbanger in the country studying speeds/feeds and chip loads.
 

Latest Threads



Top