3-D Printing Lawsuit Pits Gun Control Against Free Speech

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Would you be in this situation if you put instructions on the internet on how to mill a gun from a block of steel?

In their complaint, they claim that a State Department agency called the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) violated their first amendment right to free speech by telling Defense Distributed that it couldn’t publish a 3-D printable file for its one-shot plastic pistol known as the Liberator, along with a collection of other printable gun parts, on its website.
Click to expand...
 
That's interesting... considering the need to have registered weapons.... vs freedom of speech.
 
pothb said:
That's interesting... considering the need to have registered weapons.... vs freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Didn't work out so well for Canada. Which is why they scrapped it for Unrestricted weapons. Also didn't work out with New Zealand, which is why they did away with weapon registration. I don't think we need it here, even though we already have it in some states.
 
Didn't know that about other countries....

I'm not really for or against and have little interest in it. I might get a pistol to go range shooting, but I don't know how long I'd keep that as a hobby.... til I've tried it. People tell me it's fun.
 
And as technology rapidly progresses over the next 20 years to where the average joe might have a 3D printer in their garage capable of printing strong METAL or composite parts just how long is civilization going to be able to regulate projectile firearms?

Bits of lead propelled out of metal tubes... it's trivial to make today.
 
pothb said:
Didn't know that about other countries....

I'm not really for or against and have little interest in it. I might get a pistol to go range shooting, but I don't know how long I'd keep that as a hobby.... til I've tried it. People tell me it's fun.
Click to expand...

It's alright I guess. I've had my gun for ten or twelve years and have less than a thousand rounds through it. Gets old, quick. There are things to do that are actually fun.
 
Sounds like a whole helluva lot of bullshit to me.

My grandfather built zip guns from piping and scrap metal that were more reliable than these things. Yes it was highly illegal, but no one gave a shit because he never went out and used them for malicious purposes. People seem to think that with the advent of 3D printing that the tools and cost to manufacture firearms is significantly less. They seem to forget that any joe schmoe can build firearms with off the shelf materials just like they can build bombs.
 
pothb said:
That's interesting... considering the need to have registered weapons.... vs freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
Even if you're all for registration, why can't you register something you print yourself?

You simply tell the government I printed "XYZ blueprint" or "XYZ any other gun" and you get an approval and tax stamp for it, and you keep the paperwork and voila you have a registered firearm. That way if you shoot someone with it or are found with it, bam its on file that you have registered it.

Whats the big deal?

And visa versa, if you have a criminal record or are underage and are not allowed to have a firearm, if you're found with a firearm again on file you have nothing registered and can't have anything registered so the firearm you have is confiscated and you are punished.

This really isn't rocket science. In effect, you're registering PEOPLE on whether or not they can carry a firearm, instead of registering a firearm like its an animate object with a mind of its own.
 
Basically, what I'm saying is make it like a driver's license. On my license it says CM; so if a cop pulls me over in a car or a motorcycle, he knows I'm licensed. DONE. SIMPLE.

Likewise, if he pulls over some schmuck who doesn't have a license, bam, you arrest him.

And just like mine says CM, if I am driving a commercial 18-wheeler, again I'm not licensed for it, so bam, done. The same thing can be done for guns. If I have say a SC license, he knows that if he finds me with a silencer or a concealed handgun its no big deal. You don't worry about the gun, you worry about the person. Simple.
 
pothb said:
That's interesting... considering the need to have registered weapons.... vs freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Not all states require registration.

As to the comment about making out of metal, this has been the case for some time, and info can be found freely online, there use to be many videos and how to for making a full gun from a mini mill (many can be had in the 4-600 range, so pretty cheap), but that is a bit to far, in most cases it is the receiver that has to be registered, so you can buy everything else, such as barrel, stock, all the small parts like springs and firing pin, extractor etc etc online and just make the single part that you have to register as a firearm if you buy one.
 
Advil said:
And as technology rapidly progresses over the next 20 years to where the average joe might have a 3D printer in their garage capable of printing strong METAL or composite parts just how long is civilization going to be able to regulate projectile firearms?

Bits of lead propelled out of metal tubes... it's trivial to make today.
Click to expand...

Not against the law either. In many States it is lawful to make a firearm yourself as long as you are using domestically produced materials, meaning in your state, not across State lines.

The problem this boy has isn't that he made a gun, or made a gun from a 3D printer. His problem is that he published the instruction Set on the internet and that is what prompted the charges, which look valid.
 
Cody has every right to publish a file on how to print a very basic gun. He's exercising his right to speech and it shouldn't be infringed upon. These printed guns(non metal) still suffer from reliability problems. Why would someone spend thousands of dollars to get a good 3d printer when they could just buy a new gun for under $400 in a retail store or on the street. Hell, would drawing a picture of a cannon or pipe bomb and uploading online make someone criminally liable as well. Your local hardware store has all the materials needed to create a weapon. At the end of the day, someone planning on doing harm is going to acquire there materials legally or not....end of story.
 
Apparently the State Department needs a refresher course on how the Internet works (we know how knowledgeable Hillary was as Secretary).

Just like how well all those DMCA take-downs the music and movie industry have demanded, I'm sure the files will be totally scrubbed from existence....yeah.
 
Ducman69 said:
Basically, what I'm saying is make it like a driver's license.
Click to expand...

Because the Bill of Rights guarantees a person the right to keep and bear arms. It does not guarantee any right to drive. Driving is a privilege granted by the state. If the government was consistent in how it treated rights and the Second Amendment were treated like the First Amendment this wouldn't be a discussion.

Don't like the idea of people owning guns and the government not being privy to it? Well I don't like the idea of someone putting a crucifix upside-down in a jar of pee and calling that free speech, but it is free speech and it is their right, and people don't have to register guns which is also their right. Oh, and if you want to argue "but my free speech never killed anyone", that's not the point. Equal application of the law means just that. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution. That's the only way that's going to change.
 
Phoenix333 said:
Because the Bill of Rights guarantees a person the right to keep and bear arms. It does not guarantee any right to drive. Driving is a privilege granted by the state.
Click to expand...
You do have a right to drive. You can drive without a license on your private property or someone else's private property with their permission all you want. You don't have a right to drive on public roads.

Likewise you have a right to grizzly bear arms. You can buy a gun and carry it unlicensed on your private property or someone else's with their permission, and for the most part use it as you see fit. You don't necessarily have a God given right to carry/use your firearm in public areas, just like with cars.

So it can certainly be argued that its not a constitutional violation to license the carrying of firearms in public, since someone can do whatever they want on private property and "form a militia" on their own lands.
 
Ducman69 said:
You do have a right to drive. You can drive without a license on your private property or someone else's private property with their permission all you want. You don't have a right to drive on public roads.

Likewise you have a right to grizzly bear arms. You can buy a gun and carry it unlicensed on your private property or someone else's with their permission, and for the most part use it as you see fit. You don't necessarily have a God given right to carry/use your firearm in public areas, just like with cars.

So it can certainly be argued that its not a constitutional violation to license the carrying of firearms in public, since someone can do whatever they want on private property and "form a militia" on their own lands.
Click to expand...

Many court cases even go further than this, in that we have the right to travel, it does not matter how we do it, we still have that right. Though it has been slow going with courts proving this, when it comes to the operation of a motor vehicle.
 
Ducman69, you are mostly right I think, but I think you passed something by as well. Forcing the licensing of firearms also risks creating the essence of a database on gun ownership and that does violate the 2nd Amendment.

So in short, if they make you license your firearms if you want to carry them that's one thing, but if they make you license them to own and posses them then it's a whole different issue.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Many court cases even go further than this, in that we have the right to travel, it does not matter how we do it, we still have that right. Though it has been slow going with courts proving this, when it comes to the operation of a motor vehicle.
Click to expand...

Yes, but forcing driver's licenses doesn't inhibit that right. It only regulates it.
 
lcpiper said:
Ducman69, you are mostly right I think, but I think you passed something by as well. Forcing the licensing of firearms also risks creating the essence of a database on gun ownership and that does violate the 2nd Amendment.

So in short, if they make you license your firearms if you want to carry them that's one thing, but if they make you license them to own and posses them then it's a whole different issue.
Click to expand...
Well, but I don't believe in licensing firearms, I believe only in licensing an individual. I don't care about inanimate objects, they never hurt anyone. People hurt people. So if a cop finds a guy with an automatic weapon, who cares about the automatic weapon, we should care about the person carrying it whether they are licensed for an automatic or not. If they are, then no worries on your way sir. If they aren't, then throw them in the back of a party van and remember to seatbelt them this time.
 
From the site.

But while government lawyers appealed the case, control of encryption software exports was moved from the State Department to the Commerce Department and then protected by a new exception, preventing Bernstein vs. the United States from proving ITAR unconstitutional on first amendment grounds
Click to expand...
.

This is what disturbs me, the interstate commerce clause, the most abused part of our constitution. The nature of the law dis not change, the just claim it is now "commerce" -- voila now it is ours.

If I had a time machine i would go back and show the founders the loopholes they made.

I'd also so the a picture of Marilyn Manson, just to mess with them :D
 
Ducman69 said:
Well, but I don't believe in licensing firearms, I believe only in licensing an individual. I don't care about inanimate objects, they never hurt anyone. People hurt people. So if a cop finds a guy with an automatic weapon, who cares about the automatic weapon, we should care about the person carrying it whether they are licensed for an automatic or not. If they are, then no worries on your way sir. If they aren't, then throw them in the back of a party van and remember to seatbelt them this time.
Click to expand...

I think I misunderstood your point before. I agree with the spirit of the concept, except I think it should be the other way. I think instead of licensing individuals that prohibiting certain individuals should be the approach, much in the way that currently a convicted felon cannot purchase, possess, or handle a weapon. This way only those that have abused their right and acted in a criminal fashion need to be regulated. Innocent until proven guilty, thus a presumption of innocence is applied when it comes to exercising this right.

The only reason I disagree with the idea of licensing an individual is the fact that nobody really considers vehicle ownership to be controversial. Nobody's trying to ban cars or restrict the kind you can own. There are people in government and outside of government that are openly or secretly hostile toward firearms ownership though. That's why I think the burden of proof should be on the state as to why someone can't own or bear a firearm as opposed to having the state grant a license as to who can. Nobody needs a license to exercise their right to free speech, after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top