Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Court victory legalizes 3D-printable gun blueprints
Source:
TechCrunch
URL Source: https://techcrunch.com/
Published: Jul 10, 2018
Author: Devin Coldewey
Post Date: 2018-07-11 11:23:07 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 6365
Comments: 30
A multi-year legal battle over the ability to distribute computer models of gun parts and replicate them in 3D printers has ended in defeat for government authorities who sought to prevent the practice. Cody Wilson, the gunmaker and free speech advocate behind the lawsuit, now intends to expand his operations, providing printable gun blueprints to all who desire them. The longer story of the lawsuit is well told by Andy Greenberg over at Wired, but the decision is eloquent on its own. The fundamental question is whether making 3D models of gun components available online is covered by the free speech rights granted by the First Amendment. This is a timely but complex conflict because it touches on two themes that happen to be, for many, ethically contradictory. Arguments for tighter restrictions on firearms are, in this case, directly opposed to arguments for the unfettered exchange of information on the internet. It’s hard to advocate for both here: restricting firearms and restricting free speech are one and the same. That at least seems to be conclusion of the government lawyers, who settled Wilson’s lawsuit after years of court battles. In a copy of the settlement provided to me by Wilson, the U.S. government agrees to exempt “the technical data that is the subject of the Action” from legal restriction. The modified rules should appear in the Federal Register soon. What does this mean? It means that a 3D model that can be used to print the components of a working firearm is legal to own and legal to distribute. You can likely even print it and use the product — you just can’t sell it. There are technicalities to the law here (certain parts are restricted, but can be sold in an incomplete state, etc.), but the implications as regards the files themselves seems clear. Wilson’s original vision, which he is now pursuing free of legal obstacles, is a repository of gun models, called DEFCAD, much like any other collection of data on the web, though naturally considerably more dangerous and controversial. “I currently have no national legal barriers to continue or expand DEFCAD,” he wrote in an email to TechCrunch. “This legal victory is the formal beginning to the era of downloadable guns. Guns are as downloadable as music. There will be streaming services for semi-automatics.” The concepts don’t map perfectly, no doubt, but it’s hard to deny that with the success of this lawsuit, there are few legal restrictions to speak of on the digital distribution of firearms. Before it even, there were few technical restrictions: certainly just as you could download MP3s on Napster in 2002, you can download a gun file today. Gun control advocates will no doubt argue that greater availability of lethal weaponry is the opposite of what is needed in this country. But others will point out that in a way this is a powerful example of how liberally free speech can be defined. It’s important to note that both of these things can be true. This court victory settles one case, but marks the beginnings of many another. “I have promoted my values for years with great care and diligence,” Wilson wrote. It’s hard to disagree with that. Those whose values differ are free to pursue them in their own way; perhaps they too will be awarded victories of this scale.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
#14. To: Deckard (#0)
What court victory? Defense Distributed lost in the District Court for the Western District of Texas and appealed to the 5th Circuit. They lost in the 5th Circuit. 20 Sep 2016. Rehearing was denied 15 March 2017. They petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for writ of cert, but that was denied 8 January 2018. The 5th Circuit wrote that Defense Distributed sued "seeking to enjoin enforcement of certain laws governing the export of unclassified technical data relating to prohibited munitions. Because the district court concluded that the public interest in national security outweighs Plaintiffs-Appellants’ interest in protecting their constitutional rights, it denied a preliminary injunction, and they timely appealed. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion and therefore affirm." The case went back to the trial court in the Western District of Texas. While Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation have published a press release about a settlement agreement and have declared victory, they have not published the settlement agreement, the DOJ does not appear to have said anything, and there is no claim that the court has accepted the settlement which does not appear on the Docket. The parties expect to conclude the settlement on or before August 4, 2018. Claims of victory may be premature. Claims of court victory appear to be fake news. A May 2, 2018 Docket entry reads, "Text Order GRANTING 93 Motion to Stay Case entered by Judge Robert Pitman. It is ORDERED that the parties file a report on the status of settlement within 60 days of this order. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (as) (Entered: 05/02/2018)" A Joint Settlement Status Report, Doc 95 of 28 June 2018 reads, Pursuant to the Court’s May 2, 2018 Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Stay Case [ECF 93], the parties file this report on the status of settlement in the above-captioned matter. The parties report that Government officials with appropriate approval authority have approved the parties’ settlement agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Defendants expect to conclude the agreement and submit a stipulation for dismissal on or before August 4, 2018. The parties expect to conclude the settlement on or before August 4, 2018.
He hasn't won just yet but they are proceeding to settlement in Wilson's favor. That's a win in anyone's book even if you don't like the result.
"The parties expect to conclude the settlement on or before August 4, 2018." The settlement agreement does not yet exist. Proceeding in Wilson's favor to do what? It is not a win until a settlement agreement is concluded which actually contains terms which could justify such a claim. As the agreement has not yet been concluded, how do you know what it does? I would like to see what it says rather than depend on a partisan description of what the yet to be concluded settlement is going to say when concluded. If you were party to a draft of an agreement and saw a one-sided press release about it claiming "This court victory settles one case," how might that affect your intent to proceed with the tentative settlement? Until something is filed with the court, there is a big nothing burger. - - - - - - - - - - 5th Circuit Opinion of the Court (20 Sep 2016) at 4-6: Everything discussed above is legal for United States citizens and will remain legal for United States citizens regardless of the outcome of this case. This case concerns Defense Distributed’s desire to share all of its 3D printing and CNC milling files online, available without cost to anyone located anywhere in the world, free of regulatory restrictions. Beginning in 2012, Defense Distributed posted online, for free download by anyone in the world, a number of computer files, including those for the Liberator pistol (the “Published Files”). On May 8, 2013, the State Department sent a letter to Defense Distributed requesting that it remove the files from the internet on the ground that sharing them in that manner violates certain laws. The district court summarized the relevant statutory and regulatory framework as follows: The AECA directs that the “defense articles” designated under its terms constitute the United States “Munitions List.” 22 U.S.C. § 2778(a)(1). The Munitions List “is not a compendium of specific controlled items,” rather it is a “series of categories describing the kinds of items” qualifying as “defense articles.” United States v. Zhen Zhou Wu, 711 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir.) cert. denied sub nom. Yufeng Wei v. United States, –––U.S. ––––, 134 S. Ct. 365, 187 L. Ed. 2d 160 (2013). Put another way, the Munitions List contains “attributes rather than names.” United States v. Pulungan, 569 F.3d 326, 328 (7th Cir. 2009) (explaining “an effort to enumerate each item would be futile,” as market is constantly changing). The term “defense articles” also specifically includes “technical data recorded or stored in any physical form, models, mockups or other items that reveal technical data directly relating to items designated in” the Munitions List. 22 C.F.R. § 120.6 A party unsure about whether a particular item is a “defense article” covered by the Munitions List may file a “commodity jurisdiction” request with the DDTC. See 22 C.F.R. § 120.4 (describing process). The regulations state the DDTC “will provide a preliminary response within 10 working days of receipt of a complete request for commodity jurisdiction.” Id. § 120.4(e). If a final determination is not provided after 45 days, “the applicant may request in writing to the Director, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy that this determination be given expedited processing.” Id. In short, the State Department contended: (1) the Published Files were potentially related to ITAR-controlled “technical data” relating to items on the USML; (2) posting ITAR-controlled files on the internet for foreign nationals to download constitutes “export”; and (3) Defense Distributed therefore must obtain prior approval from the State Department before “exporting” those files. Defense Distributed complied with the State Department’s request by taking down the Published Files and seeking commodity jurisdiction requests for them. It did eventually obtain approval to post some of the non-regulated files, but all of the Published Files continue to be shared online on third party sites like The Pirate Bay. Since then, Defense Distributed has not posted any new files online. Instead, it is seeking prior approval from the State Department and/or DDTC before doing so, and it has not obtained such approval. The new files Defense Distributed seeks to share online include the CNC milling files required to produce an AR-15 lower receiver with the Ghost Gunner and various other 3D printed weapons or weapon parts. - - - - - - - - - - Note what all Defense Distributed wanted to do and try to imagine that the Government, for no particular reason after winning in court, decided to settle and let Defense Distributed freely export worldwide, the means to produce a single shot plastic pistol, or other prohibited export items. Now look at what Defense Distributed asked for in its SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT of 16 March 2018. They only contest the requirement for prepublication approval. Defense Distributed Second Amended COMPLAINT (filed 16 Mar 2018) at 14-15: WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendants as follows: 1. A declaration that Defendants’ prepublication approval requirement for privately generated unclassified information is, on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs’ public speech, null and void, and of no effect, as an unconstitutional Ultra Vires government action. 2. A declaration that Defendants’ prepublication approval requirement for privately generated unclassified information, on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs’ public speech, to include Internet postings of the Subject Files, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; 3. A declaration that Defendants’ prepublication approval requirement for privately generated unclassified information, on its face and as applied to public speech, to include the Internet posting of files used in the production of arms of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes, including but not limited to the Subject Files, violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution; 4. A declaration that Defendants’ prepublication approval requirement for privately generated unclassified information, on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs’ public speech, to include Internet postings of the Subject Files, violates the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 5. An order permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing the prepublication approval requirement against public speech on privately generated unclassified information; 6. An order permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing the prepublication approval requirement against Plaintiffs’ public speech, to include Internet postings of the Subject Files; 7. Attorney fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and 8. Any other further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. Dated: January 31, 2018 - - - - - - - - - - Assume arguendo that Defense Distributed wins complete freedom from prepublication approval and they publish something like the computer files needed to use a 3-D printer to produce a Liberator plastic pistol. I do not see where they have sought, much less could obtain, post-publication immunity from prosecution. It may all depend on how one defines victory. Being free of prepublication restraint, relying upon self-restraint, and publishing the wrong thing, can have all one's toys taken away and land one in prison. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Yeah, yeah. I think he's won. We'll see before too long, won't we? If he releases all his files on July 27, it pretty much will not matter what they decide to do after that anyway. Even if they nailed him for something, the info and specs are already available everywhere. And the files themselves are not all that large. A regular thumb drive would hold them all.
What did he win? Immunity from the export law? If he releases all his files on July 27, it pretty much will not matter what they decide to do after that anyway. Even if they nailed him for something, the info and specs are already available everywhere. And the files themselves are not all that large. A regular thumb drive would hold them all. July 27 is before they have noticed the court of a settlement. It would matter to the dumb jerk sitting in a cell, contemplating all of his toys that were taken away. As long as he does not mind risking a million dollar fine and 20 years in prison, it's all good. "Yeah, yeah" can be offered as an affirmative defense.
We'll see.
There are no replies to Comment # 29. End Trace Mode for Comment # 29.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThis court victory settles one case....
JOINT SETTLEMENT STATUS REPORT
#15. To: nolu chan (#14)
#26. To: Tooconservative (#15)
He hasn't won just yet but they are proceeding to settlement in Wilson's favor.
That's a win in anyone's book even if you don't like the result.
Defense Distributed’s files allow virtually anyone with access to a 3D printer to produce, among other things, Defense Distributed’s single-shot plastic pistol called the Liberator and a fully functional plastic AR-15 lower receiver. In addition to 3D printing files, Defense Distributed also sells its own desktop CNC mill marketed as the Ghost Gunner, as well as metal 80% lower receivers. With CNC milling files supplied by Defense Distributed, Ghost Gunner operators are able to produce fully functional, unserialized, and untraceable metal AR-15 lower receivers in a largely automated fashion.
Under the Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”), “the President is authorized to control the import and the export of defense articles and defense services” and to “promulgate regulations for the import and export of such articles and services.” 22 U.S.C. § 2778(a)(1). The AECA imposes both civil and criminal penalties for violation of its provisions and implementing regulations, including monetary fines and imprisonment. Id. § 2278(c) & (e). The President has delegated his authority to promulgate implementing regulations to the Secretary of State. Those regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (“ITAR”), are in turn administered by the DDTC [Directorate of Defense Trade Controls] and its employees. 22 C.F.R. 120.1(a).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
#27. To: nolu chan (#26)
#28. To: Tooconservative (#27)
I think he's won.
We'll see before too long, won't we?
#29. To: nolu chan (#28)
Replies to Comment # 29.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]