Inventor Wins Right to Distribute 3D Printer Gun Plans

[Doc Safari]

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...d-printed-gun/

Cody Wilson’s Defense Distributed and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) reached a settlement with the Department of Justice allowing unfettered publication of 3D gun files and other information in a case centered on free speech.

SAF sent a press release to Breitbart News, explaining details of settlement, saying, “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.”

SAF founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb said, “Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby. For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called ‘weapons of war,’ and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort.”

Gottlieb added, “Under this settlement, the government will draft and pursue regulatory amendments that eliminate ITAR control over the technical information at the center of this case. They will transfer export jurisdiction to the Commerce Department, which does not impose prior restraint on public speech. That will allow Defense Distributed and SAF to publish information about 3-D technology.”

Boldface type is mine.

My take: This could potentially become THE salient argument that prevents future gun bans of "military looking" weapons. I'll go out on a limb and say this nips at the heels of the Heller decision in importance.

What say you?

[Amicus]

Here is a copy of the press release (with links to most of the pleadings for my fellow legal beagles):

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2018/07...buted-lawsuit/

I don't know if this will affect those jurisdictions that have "Assault Weapons" bans. It certainly will not get rid of the statutes, or prevent prohibitionists from yelling about them; but, it is an interesting incremental push toward "normalizing" the semi-auto AR and its fellows. It would be difficult, except for an Everytown meeting, to say with a straight face that these are military firearms.

[Doc Safari]

I don't know if this will affect those jurisdictions that have "Assault Weapons" bans. .

Good point. It's too late "behind enemy lines." Those areas will have to repeal the horrors already on the books, or cite this decision in an argument to declare such laws unconstitutional. What it does best is potentially hamstring future ATF regs and new legislation. It's a legal precedent that can be cited by SCOTUS in any assault weapons case that comes before them. Or so that's how I read it. It could be a small but potent "magic bullet" that allows any state AWB's to eventually be overturned by SCOTUS as being unconstitutional. It's an arrow in the quiver.

From your link:

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.

Translation: HELLOOOOOOO......there's no such thing as a semi-automatic "assault weapon."

[tb-av]

It's an arrow in the quiver.

Yes and you know what. All these Liberals bitching about RvW. What they are really scared about is the 2A. So they will argue RvW stands on president. Fine. Now so does the 2A.... I mean aside from that pesky little "Shall not be infringed" issue.

I feel way more comfortable with a few arrows in our quiver as you say then waking up one day to find our case is in the SCOTUS with nothing more than made up terms from Liberals being reasonable basis for any type decisions.

Russia!! shout it from the roof tops. It keeps the Libs occupied while some serious work gets done.

[Clint]

https://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...d-printed-gun/

Gottlieb added, “Under this settlement, the government will draft and pursue regulatory amendments that eliminate ITAR control over the technical information at the center of this case. They will transfer export jurisdiction to the Commerce Department, which does not impose prior restraint on public speech. That will allow Defense Distributed and SAF to publish information about 3-D technology.”

This ITAR piece is real interesting...

[Amicus]

Reason (online version) published an article this morning that gives a few more details.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/10/t...ody-wilsons-de

Of special interest are some statements by the ever-busy Alan Gura (who worked on this case) about how the Trump Administration has not been friendly to gun owners/gun rights folks. Here is his statement:

"This administration maintained the Obama DOJ's cert petition in Binderup (denied 7-2), and has consistently opposed all other as-applied Second Amendment challenges, including Kanter (they won, Kanter appealed), Hatfield (they lost and just appealed), Medina (they won and Medina, repped by me on appeal, appealed, argument 9/11), and Reyes (being litigated now...)," Gura says in an email today. "They have also continued defending the appeal in Mance [regarding gun purchases across state lines]—they had over a year to change their mind, see the light, and admit that the district court was right, but they stuck to their appeal which unfortunately they won, and are defending against the currently-pending en banc petition. There are other cases they defend, some of course less meritorious, but any notion that Trump is pro-gun and having DOJ roll over would be fantasy."

The case names have links to various appeals pleadings. Gura sees the Defense Distributed case as mostly a 1st Amendment issue.

There is also this tidbit (for those who are watching this sudden reversal):

The government says the removal of these legal restrictions will be announced by July 27 on the Director of Defense Trade Controls' website. In return for that action the plaintiffs agree to drop the lawsuit.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

So the plans for the gun are not ITAR controlled, but all the MAGPUL stuff that goes on it is? The scope to go on it, and the mount for it are still ITAR controlled?

[Amicus]

So the plans for the gun are not ITAR controlled, but all the MAGPUL stuff that goes on it is? The scope to go on it, and the mount for it are still ITAR controlled?

Not having seen the settlement, I assume so. This case was about the "expression" of things as it relates to the practice of 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. The big deal is that the government wanted to ban information (1) because of its content, and (2) before it had even been expressed publicly (prior restraint). None of this stuff was arcane, classified, or national security intensive; the government was attempting to stop Americans from communicating by what is now the usual form (i.e., Internet) because it might have resulted in an export of the information.

But, I imagine that if you wanted to send a bunch of actual parts (including Magpul plastic) or ACOGs to Syria, you better get a license under ITAR.