Tens Of Thousands of Ghost Gun Files Downloaded Despite Judge’s Order

Ghost Gun Downloads
Tens Of Thousands of Ghost Gun Files Downloaded Despite Judge's Order

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)-  On Tuesday, July 3`1st, 2018,, Defense Distributed put a pause on the release of the 3D printed files in light of multiple lawsuits from various states across the country.

At the same time, a federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order to prevent the sharing of the 3D data files on defcad.org.

Twenty-one state attorney generals have sent letters to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Secretary of State and Mike Pompeo calling on them to reverse the government decision to allow defense distributed to release their files for 3D printed firearm files.

In the letter, The attorney generals state that the State Department's decision was “deeply dangerous and could have an unprecedented impact on public safety.”

This statement shows a total lack of understanding of current laws or that of 3D printing technology.

Eight states and the District of Columbia have joined in a lawsuit in Seattle that successfully blocked Defense Distributed from releasing the files online. It is unclear how a Seattle judge would have jurisdiction in this case considering that Defense Distributed host the website in Austin, Texas and Defense Distributed is a Texas-based nonprofit. Outsiders could very easily see this choice of Seattle as a case of Judge shopping.

Cody Wilson and The Second Amendment Foundation sued the State Department in 2015 claiming that the State Department was violating his and Defense Distributed First Amendment rights by preventing him from publishing the files on his website. The Department of State initially argued that by Defense Distributed posting the data on defcad.org the non-profit violated International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) which controls the export of firearms and firearm parts.

At the time the State Department compared the sharing of the files online to driving to Mexico and handing out firearms on the streets. Earlier this month Wilson reached an agreement with the State Department which would allow him to share the 3D printing files on the defcad.org website.

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, and the Giffords Law Center sued Defense Distributed in federal court attempting to block the release of the files online. The courts dismissed that case because these anti-gun groups did not have the standing to bring a temporary restraining order against Defense Distributed.

The Attorney General for New Jersey and the City Attorney for Los Angeles started sending letters to Defense Distributed threatening legal action if they proceeded to share the files online. Defense Distributed has since filed a lawsuit against both of these jurisdictions claiming harassment. That case is still pending.

On Tuesday the Attorney General from New Jersey tried to institute a nationwide takedown of the defcad.org site through a court order. The courts denied his motion.

The state of Pennsylvania has won a temporary agreement from Defense Distributed blocking Pennsylvania residents from downloading the files. Defense Distributed is filing a motion to free its companies of such restraints and would once again let defense distributed share the files with Pennsylvania residents.

Democrats from both the House of Representatives and Senate have introduced legislation to block 3D printed guns. Firearms that can defeat metal detectors are already illegal, so it is unclear how this legislation would make Americans any safer. That legislation against undetectable firearms was based on a misconception of Glocks due to a single throwaway line from Die Hard 2. Even Donald Trump took to Twitter to say he was looking into 3D printed guns.

It seems like the plan is to tie up Defense Distributed in court until the non-profit runs out of money to fight the suites or laws can be passed to prevent the files from being shared.

The government and anti-gun groups are not the only people trying to stop Defense Distributed and his release of the files. Defcad.org has been under denial-of-service attacks from hackers trying to prevent the downloading of the plans before Defense Distributed pulled the files from their site.

The files went live on Friday. One file the Liberator, which Wilson named after the World War II gun of the same name, is a single shot .380ACP pistol. As of Tuesday afternoon, the plans for the Liberator have been downloaded over 5,000 times.

A quick search of the internet found these files now being shared across multiple sites and on numerous peer-to-peer file-sharing software. Even if defcad.org gets shut down, there is a no way to scrub the internet of the files. A lack of understanding of technology seems to be at play here.

Scott Martelle penned a column in The LA Times calling for the government to ban the software that is used to produce 3D printed guns. What Martelle and the LA Times does not understand is that software that is used to print guns is not unique to firearms and is used in literally thousands of other applications including the parts of the servers that the LA Times is hosted on.

This issue of the sharing of 3D firearms files isn't just a Second Amendment case but is also a case that can have a chilling and far-reaching effect on freedom of speech in America. It is a perfect storm of overreaction and lack of understanding of current laws and technology. What will they ban next, books on gun-smithing?

About John CrumpJohn Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. He is the former CEO of Veritas Firearms, LLC and is the co-host of The Patriot News Podcast which can be found at www.blogtalkradio.com/patriotnews. John has written extensively on the patriot movement including 3%'ers, Oath Keepers, and Militias. In addition to the Patriot movement, John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and is currently working on a book on leftist deplatforming methods and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, on Facebook at realjohncrump, or at www.crumpy.com.

  • 61 thoughts on “Tens Of Thousands of Ghost Gun Files Downloaded Despite Judge’s Order

    1. @Tionico and the Ammoland Community

      Posting this in a new line so it can go to the very top of the comment section where everyone can see it.

      On August 8, 2018 at 9:44PM I offered a bet to the tune of $10 open to a single individual if someone wanted to speak up before Tionico posted again. The bet was that I felt Tionico did not have the honesty or integrity to answer the question I had asked, and that he had previously avoided and ignored answering on no less than two separate occasions. Tionico has since tried to claim winning the bet, despite yet again having made no attempt to acknowledge or answer the question I provided and therefore by definition had lost.

      Considering this, I am willing to offer him a new bet. Since math seemed to be a problem for him the previous time in spite of explaining the old bet in complete depth, I will attempt to make this as easy as possible.

      I have cash money that can either be given to a church, or to a 2nd or 1st amendment advocate foundation of Tionico’s choice if he can honestly answer the question I am about to ask honestly, sincerely, and without sarcasm. I don’t think he can do it. That is why I am doubling the amount of the original bet so the total is now $20 out of my pocket.

      The Question ~ “Why is it that when you first targeted my comments, you argued for strict adherence to the exact letter and wording of the constitution, but now you have attempted to change that and argue for your own personal interpretations and no longer quote the direct language but attempt to insert new words/definitions/powers as you see fit?”

      My argument has remained constant from the start.

      1. A federal judge has authority granted by congress to put a stay on providing he operates by the constitution and does not go farther than allowed.

      2. The why of which is so the case may be presented to the supreme court as prescribed for in the constitution.(To satisfy jurisdiction)

      3. The entire Constitution must be adhered to. No selective elevating for personal politics, even if it means you lose an argument.

      4. The legislative, executive, and judicial branches are all subservient to the Constitution, checks and balances must be enforced.

      5. BE CONSISTENT

      Perhaps my thoughts on the constitution being so easy to read and straightforward, perhaps Tionico did not understand my abbreviated early posts. However, now arguing against the constitution just because he wants to somehow find a way to punish me for daring to question him?

      I am a man of my word, and if he can prove me wrong I will follow through. My original point of contention with him from the beginning has been that he puts too much emphasis on judicial power, and should instead focus on the constitution. That is not expedient right now, as it does not punish his “enemies” fast enough. What he forgets is that the pendulum always swings back, and he wont like it when the same courts he championed before suddenly are being used against him once again.

    2. Scott Martelle’s article was described incorrectly. He actually said that the government should NOT try to ban files or software, and defended Wilson’s right to free speech.

      He DID follow that by saying that the real “problem” is that people are allowed to make their own guns. But only after he wrote a sound defense of free speech.

      To give credit where it’s due, his article is a lot more fair and even-handed than most from the left. We should disagree with him for the right reasons.

      1. @KC “… allowed to make their own guns…” Apparently Scott Martelle thinks that the Right to Keep, bear, buy, sell and make ones own firearms comes from the government, and that it is acceptable to treat some Civil Rights differently from others.

    3. Re this Washington state based federal judge his injunction, and “judge shopping”, concerning the latter, that is Judge Shopping, Say It Isn’t So Joe, Say It Isn’t So.

      1. @Vanns40

        Ok, I have heard two claims, one that he is an Appellate circuit judge, or is a judge in Seattle as a state judge.

        There are a few issues I do see with this. First, if it is a state judge, then he does not have authority as such to attempt to control issues occurring outside of their states borders.

        If it is a federal appellate judge, then he does have the Authority only so long as there is constitutional merit. He may not over rule the constitution just because a bunch of offended progressives demand him to. In this case, it is the First, Fourth, and Ninth amendments which are in disagreement with the judge.

        At no time does the United States Government, or any state themselves have the Constitutional authority to prohibit the publication of speech whether verbal or print. This includes the Judge as he must operate under the Constitution which grants him authority. Thus, if it goes any farther than a temporary injunction until a ruling is made, his decision and authority are null and void.

        This is what we all must remember. We must stand strong on the constitution and do everything we can to educate those around us, especially when it means we must argue against some of our own personal views. That is the only way to get this country back on track.

        1. If it is a federal appellate judge, then he does have the Authority only so long as there is constitutional merit. He may not over rule the constitution just because a bunch of offended progressives demand him to.

          Nope, NO AUTHORITY in this type of case. WHY?

          Read your copy of the Constitution, specifically Art 3 Sec 2 Par 2.
          WHO are the named parties in this lawsuit the judge in Seattle has taken up? EIGHT states, and the DC. Per the cited part above, ALL such cases can ONLY be taken up by the SUpreme Court on Original Jurisdiction.

          This two bit hooh hah in a black nighties is NOT SCOTUS. He’s suffering from delusionis of grandeur. SOMEONE needs to take him out behind the woodshed. Since he’s got NO authority or jurisdiction in a case naming eight states, his words are flypoop on paper. Ignore them. Cody Wilson should…..

          and anyone trying to enforce those words needs to be dealt with as well.

          1. Wait a minute guys! How did the libtards get past the venue issue? Venue answers the question, ” Of all the courts that have jurisdiction, which is most local?” The company is in Texas not Seattle Washington. And mootness? This case is moot because the free speech material is already out on the internet. I sent a copy to the POTUS, and my two US Senators, yesterday.
            I think that some well heeled libtards had lunch with a libjudge and the the fix is in.

            1. @Wild Bill

              Yes, it was judge shopping, but any of the states in the case could file within their own state. I think the reasoning behind the Venue issue is that because it is on the internet, they are arguing it crosses state lines. You already know how I feel about the Commerce Clause and how the courts have ruled on that, but since I try to refrain from cursing…. You get the picture.

              Right now what you are witnessing is desperation from those on the left. They are loosing the war over the Constitution left and right, and are grasping for anything they can to try and stop it. My own thought is if we have a chance to drive another nail into the lid that prevents them from ever being able to backtrack or pass future laws to curtail our liberty, why not pursue it? Consider this, it took over a year and a half to get the original case tossed out after the last administration started this battle. Why so long? Not everyone with an R in front of their name is on the side of the constitution. If we close a door that they would like to wiggle through, then they have no excuse.

          2. @Tionico

            No, it is not the Supreme Court, but neither should you give that body too much importance either.

            What that judge does have authority to do is issue a stay/injunction for clarification or a ruling.
            All this is is a temporary pause. As I said, if it tries to go further than that, it becomes a violation of the constitution. Sadly, since the Supreme court no longer takes all cases thanks to the stupidity of Congress and the ignorance of the American Voter, thus abdicating much of its authority and jurisdiction to the Appellate courts. Do I agree with it? Not one bit. At this time however cases begin at the appellate level and move their ways up to SCOTUS. If the appeal is then to the supreme court and the temporary stay is only asking for clarification as such, then does that qualify? Lets test this to see if you are consistent. If congress were to pass a law requiring the confiscation of all magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds, and ten States brought claims to the Appellate court where a Judge issued an injunction on enforcement of the law pending the case working its way through the system, would you be in favor of that ruling your angrily issuing veiled threats about how the judge and anyone who tries to enforce the injunction should be “Dealt with”?

            I’m still trying to figure out just what it is that upset you so badly since you took the time to try and quote me, yet you missed the key part of what I said, “He may not over rule the constitution just because a bunch of offended progressives demand him to.” As long as it is only temporary, with a defined time limit and the judge himself does not try to rule against the constitution it has not yet met the boundary you are looking for. We know what the Constitution says, and this may be a way to strip the argument firmly out of their hands for future similar situations and prevent further attempts by the progressive left to legislate through the judiciary.

            1. Revelator, please take out your copy of the Constitution and find that part I cite, and READ it. That was brilliantly put there by our Founders for exactly this sort of instance. That part clearly defines which KINDS of cases MUST only be taken up by the Supreme COurt…. all cases where any state is a named party. THIS case is one of those, thus the two bit tinker judge in Seattle cannot even consider it. He has NO grounds to make any proclamation, issue any stay, or anything else Quite simply, he’s breaking his oath to uphold the COnstitution by even addressing this case.

              Yes, I did read your later part, agree with it, and have nothing to add regarding it. MY point was the opening issue, whether this court in Seattle has any business even opening the fie folder. It does not. Constitutoin says so, Time we restore that to its rightful place.

            2. @Tionico.

              I have read it, and being as read as I am, may also be aware of some other things to which you are not.

              To start with, You are citing Article Three, section two paragraph two. What you are doing however is forgetting about Article three Section one. It is here in the Constitution that it grants congress the power to establish and delegate jurisdiction/authority to the Supreme and Inferior courts under it. Congress has, and has acted on that power at multiple points in the past, the very first of which happened during the first year of or government under our current constitution. This is part of the checks and balances that each branch has on each other. The supreme court is not immune to this, as each branch has checks and balances against the other. I have stated before in the past that our courts have been broken from the beginning of the founding of this nation, and I still hold that to be true. Keep that in mind as you read my next points.

              The example of which I am referring to is the Judiciary Act of 1789, the actions of which restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme court over cases brought to the Circuit courts to those which pass “A prescribed minimum” level of controversy. The purpose of this was in part to prevent Judicial tyranny, which was a very real fear at that time, the same as putting too much power in the executive office of President, and to prevent the supreme court from being overloaded by cases of menial squabbles. If the overloading of cases with little or no validation sounds familiar, it should since it is a favored tactic of the left. The prime example of that are the frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers for the actions of criminals. Congress, using the authority granted to it under Article three Section one passed The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to remove the authority of the courts over those cases, regulating that the courts could not try and hold liable companies for the actions of an individual citizen who happens to be using their products. There are more cases which happened during the 19th Century in which the Supreme court both agreed and disagreed with Congress’s authority to regulate them, and when looked at those rulings do attempt to strike a balance.

              As such, yes, even with reading Section two of Article three, the judge does have Jurisdiction because Congress gave it to the inferior courts. Again, do I agree with it? No I do not, but according to the Constitution that is how it is, so as long as the judge does not attempt to rule against the Constitution he does have the authority to ask for clarification, and the case will either be dismissed or proceed forward to an appeal on the First Amendment rights of Cody Wilson, which is the exact reason the Government tried to settle in the first place.

              Now you also did not answer my question I made to you. If you need me to repost it as a separate response I will, but I would like you to answer it please.

            3. REvelator, there is no option to respond BELOW your most recent, so I’m putting it here, which is close.

              The Judiciary Act you cite does most of what you claim, but it CAN NOE override the clear language of Art 3 Sec 2. Remembe,r the Supreme Law of the Land remains the Constitutioin and ALL LAWS enacted PERSUANT thereto. The founders wisely established a boundary round the lesser courts before any were even established precisely to guard against what we see here.. and with Trump’s EO’s, and a few other recent examples of tyranny. KNOWING the extreme vetting and full support of the COngress to even seat a jusstice on the Supreme COurt, they deemed THAT court, and tath court ONLY, suitable to rule on any matter involving an entire state. They (founders) refused to leave such matters to the whims, corruption, bias, of the lesser courts. In order to change that restriction we must pass a Constitutinal Ammendment. The clear language of that document governs, in spite of whatever the courts might think. Let alone what some two bit piddly podunk lesser court might think, or be bribed/otherwise influenced to decide.

              Your points aobut venue and weightiness are valid, and would bear, except that, per Art 3 Sec 2, those podunk courts are restriced from taking up any actions where one or more STATES are named parties. You might recall ther ecent matter of Peruta, which the SCOTUS recently declined to grant Certiori. That case began as a local case, Mr. Peruta against the County of San Diego.. not a state. The present matter originated with EIGHT states going up against on individual and his company. The case Washington and Minnesota vs President Trump was restricted on two bases, states being parties, and the President being a party.

              It is way past time the clear language of the Constitution being set aside in favour of the prefernces, biases, end-games of patty nanny-state tyrants be ended. There is valid reason that language and intent, expressed in Art 3 Sec 2 is once again upheld as the Supreme Law of the Land. That is necessary to precllude venue shopping; as mentioned elsewhere, the chosen venue, one known for strong anti-gun bias as well as strong government power-mongering, is wrong on its face, as Washington nor any of the other plaintiff states are harmed parties (no “standing”) as the individual and his company are situate i the State of Texas. IF a plaintiff with standing could be found IN TEXAS, it might change things a bit… but even then, Texas would likely be either plaintiff (bringing the suit) or respondent (state government subject of a demand to “protect” the interests of the imaginarily “harmed” plaintiff). In this instance, however, none of this is true, and that Seattle sorry excuse for a “judge” needs to take a chill pill, accept his lesser rank, and go have an iced latté at his local Charbux…… or be removed from office as having failed to abide by his oath of office.

            4. @Tionico

              You have eyes but do not see, and ears but do not hear. So let me make it clear. You are quite right that other sections of the constitution barring an amendment may not override Article three Section two. That being said, by the same measure Article three Section two may not over ride any other section of the constitution either, and that includes section one of the same article. It is for this reason that the Supreme court upheld the power of Congress to regulate how cases proceed to the Supreme court in the 1800’s, yet at the same time stated congress could not deny access to the court for any case of individuals seeking an original writ of habeas corpus or certiorari under the constitution. Article Three Section one expressly grants congress the ability to form the lower courts and define their authority so long as they are subservient to the supreme court. Article three Section two cannot over ride this. The Founders are the exact ones who did this as I outlined in my previous response. Article three Section one is one of the checks and balances of Congress against judicial over reach, whether you like it or not. THAT IS THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION. Yes, they also have the power of advice and consent as well as impeachment, just as the president has sole authority to nominate judges and to remove them(As the Supreme Court has upheld pending direct evidence of wrongdoing or corruption.

              As to the references you are attempting to cite, a few things need to be cleared up. First, the Peruta case worked its way up through the circuit court system as prescribed. The fact that it started out as a case against a county has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Why? Because the supreme court was given authority via congress to reject cases as I previously described, which it would still have the authority to do as far as the Wilson case goes. That is a separate subject of judicial authority.

              Next, in regards to the judges who are ruling some of the Executive orders to remove Executive orders from the Obama era. You are conflating an entirely separate issue yet again. As a prime example, most currently the subject of DACA has been raised again with a judge ordering it to be put back in place. The judge does not have this authority. Why? BECAUSE DACA IS NOT A LAW! DACA was a EO passed for the purpose of stating that then president Obama was not going to enforce the laws on the books according to his constitutional duty. For an Executive order to be constitutional it must be made pursuant to an already existing law passed by congress, and it must not
              violate the constitution by its own nature. Because DACA sought to exempt the president from his obligations under the constitution, it was unconstitutional from the start and therefore President trump has every right to dismiss it via EO while calling on congress to fix it via the legislative process, and the judge in question has no authority to rule as DACA was not a constitutionally passed law. That is not the same subject we are discussing here. Stop with the red herrings.

              There is a difference between a Stay pending appeal to the supreme court, and a lower court judge usurping authority to rule from behind the bench. The judge in this case, as stated before does have a right to issue a stay, but not to give a ruling on the case. That is whether you like it or not, because the constitutions plain language gave Congress the authority to make that so, the president to appoint the judge to do so, and as long as he does not over step those boundries and attempt to usurp the higher courts power it is constitutional. YELLING AND SCREAMING “ARTICLE THREE SECTION TWO!” OVER AND OVER WONT CHANGE THAT.

              It’s very easy for someone to cherry pick one section of the constitution and then try to beat others over the head with it over and over in the hopes that it will win the argument. I have had to deal with that from other individuals on other issues such as unconstitutional land grabbing out west, to the issues of executive orders themselves. So it is your choice whether or not you make a fool out of yourself further from this point on, because before you do please remember that you argued against what I said concerning the Judiciary act of 1789 by trying to cite your cherry picked section yet again. In doing so however it shows you do not read your own Constitution because you forgot about Article six, but since my point was that you were trying to elevate your preferred section to being above the rest of the constitution you are providing the proof against yourself.

              Now, Since this is the second time you have chosen to avoid answering the question I put forward to you previously, I will post it below, and you really don’t have much wiggle room now.

            5. @ Tionico

              Here is the question I tried to put forth previously. Rereading the comment, it looks like part of it got deleted and dropped onto the end of the question as it was posting. So here is the question in full.

              “Lets test this to see if you are consistent. If congress were to pass a law requiring the confiscation of all magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds, and ten States brought claims to the Appellate court where a Judge issued an injunction on enforcement of the law pending the case working its way through the system, would you be in favor of that ruling(referring to the injunction pending court review)?”

              Now, at this point you really have only three ways to try and answer this because of your previous statements, unless you try to dance like a politician and weasel your way around the side and pretend like it is no big deal.

              First, you can say “No”, which according to your previous comments would make you a liar either for what you said before or saying no now. You have created that Dichotomy with your own words. Second, if you answer yes then you are a hypocrite, because by your own words you would support something you previously said was wrong for something you disagree with but are willing to support as long as it fits your opinions and desires. Third and last, you can remain silent and continue to avoid answering and show everyone here by your actions that you know you were wrong and got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

              I leave the choice up to you, to be a man and own up to what you said, or get mad and continue to hope that repeating yourself over and over will somehow magically make this go away. I’m waiting to see what you do

            6. Mr. Revelator, you completely miss what I have said, AND the clear intent of the passage of the Constitution Inhave cited, Art 3 Sec 2 Par 2.

              Content has nothing to do with it. IF a State, or a minister of the public trust such as a president, is one of the named parties to the matter in action, then SCOTUS ONLY can take that matter up. No lesser court can. SUbject matter does not matter. That bit is crystal clear, and sets firm limits, not on jusridiction, but y=upon authority to take up, hear, and rule on a given matter when States or people like the presdient are named parties. No way round it, and nothing else anywhere in the Constitution can scoot out from underneat that. Thus I ave no need to answer how those matters you cit should have been judged by the lesser courts. My stand is ONLY that those lesser courts can not have heard the matters. ONLY the SCOTUS have such authority WHEN states/presidents are named parties. IF the present case filed in Washington with EIGHT states and D of C as plaintiffs were to be taken up by SCOTUS ahd duy weighed, depending on the evidence, precedents, etc, which have not come to my attention, would be reasonable grounds for discussion. And I would defer judgement until briefs, evidence, arguments, precedents, are brought to bear.

              My point, and from which I cannot move, is that those lower courts lack AUTHORITY. It is plainly denied them by that section. Ergo the rulings and pontifications by those two bit courts are null, void, of no effect, not law, moot, and so nuch gun-flapping. Worthless nattering.

            7. @Tionico

              No, I did not miss anything. Allow me to show you while quoting you directly.

              “That bit is crystal clear, and sets firm limits, not on jusridiction, but y=upon authority to take up, hear, and rule on a given matter when States or people like the presdient are named parties.”

              Please note, the stated quote above. The Supreme court as I have acknowledged and agreed with previously is the only court the constitution acknowledges to take up, hear, and rule on a given matter. What you are wrongly trying to do is conflate putting a stay/injunction pending a request to the Supreme court to hear a case as the same as issuing a ruling. On that, you are absolutely wrong. Article three Section one gave Congress the power to instill authority upon circuit judges to have this power. This has been pointed out repeatedly, and you have repeatedly tried to ignore this so you could treat a “Stay” as being the same as a ruling. To quote you once again, “No way round it, and nothing else anywhere in the Constitution can scoot out from underneath that”, and that includes Article three Section two. Again, you are factually and constitutionally wrong.

              I love that you are ignoring the question put forward to you.. First, it shows you do not have the balls to step up and be a man. to honestly address a legitimate question because it destroys your argument. Because you are trying to argue a point for a personal reason and not actual support of the Constitution as it is written, you are demonstrating a practiced ignorance of the rest of the constitution so you can continue to try and repeat the same IGNORANT POINT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. This is a lie of omission on your part.

              What you fail to realize is that as I sit here I am laughing my head off. Every time you ignore the evidence presented to you, the Entire Constitution just so you can try and repeat the same thing over and over again when it has already been disproven as being applicable during current given circumstances, the only thing you are displaying is that you have stuffed your head so far up your rectum that you may need medical assistance to extract it. You are displaying your lie and double standard to everyone here. Let me use your own quote from above to demonstrate this to you yet again.

              As you have stated, The supreme court has sole responsibility to hear and rule on a case between states and individuals of another state. However, this also means that you yourself acknowledge that unless that Circuit Judge takes authority, hears a case, and then attempts to rule on that case as to whether or not it is constitutional, NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. Article three, Section two does not reserve the authority of granting a pause pending Supreme court jurisprudence. Of course you could reply that such authority is implied by that section of Article three, if you had not already stated that you are arguing the enforcement and proponency of the EXACT WORDING OF THE CONSTITUTION. To argue that point now, you will have to cite another article under the constitution for the exact wording, otherwise you are once again demonstrating hypocrisy. Again, if it wasn’t your own words that disprove and delegitimize your argument it wouldn’t be half as laughable as it is.

              I truly do feel sorry for you. You could be someone whose voice would be of benefit for reinstituting the Constitution. Instead your argument is no different than that of individuals like Barrack Obama and David Hogg. Each will cite a section of the constitution that they feel justifies them, while ignoring the rest. Each does so because of their personal reasons and desires, attempting to use the constitution as justification. It is no different than Gun control proponents who ignore the exact wording of the Second Amendment in favor of one section containing the word “Militia”, which they then twist to self justify their argument. Congratulations! You are now no different than them.

              The only reason you are now refusing to answer the question I asked you is because is as I stated. You cant answer yes. You cant Answer no. So now you are doing everything to avoid answering it, and as stated that shows you know you messed up. Thank you for showing everyone here at ammoland that you lack the integrity to step up and acknowledge your own double standard.

              *Clap*__________*Clap*__________*Clap*

            8. Anyone taking/giving odds on whether Tionico grows a set and can honestly look at and either answer the question, or admit to the points where his own words disagree with what he has previously said?

              I’ve got $10 on a single wager open to 1 individual and would take 3:1 odds. Perhaps most of you recognize at this point that this would be a sucker bet, but now the question becomes whether Tionico would choose to be honest just to spite me and cost my wallet $10 or whether his ego will continue to prevent him from abandoning his lie.

            9. happen to have a few momemts to waste here.. so I write.. NOT to appease or amuse YOU, but to clarify things for anyone else bored enough to have followed this far:

              quoting the Constitution:
              in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a STATE shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

              end quote.

              WAS the “matter” brought before that Seattle two bit judge a “case” or not? If it WAS, it falls under the category of ALL CASES in which a STATE shall be a party.. in this case, eight states.

              My questioni to you is this: WAS the matter that judge opened up, read, looked into (or didn’t bother to), then RULE on by granting an injunction, a case in which one or more STATES were parties?

              If you answer YES, my point stands and you own me thirty bucks. If NO, please explain how the thing that judge dealt with is NOT a “case” per definition current in the legal world.

              Splain THAT one to me Loosey…..

            10. @ Tionico

              “My questioni to you is this: WAS the matter that judge opened up, read, looked into (or didn’t bother to), then RULE on by granting an injunction, a case in which one or more STATES were parties?”

              The judge has not heard, tried, or Ruled on the case. An Injunction is not a ruling, it is merely an order of pause until the case is heard and sorted out. Now would you like to point out where in Article three section two it states that the Supreme court has sole authority for putting a pause/stay/injunction? It does state that the sole authority to hear and decide on the constitutionality or final outcome of a suit rests with the supreme court, but try as I may there is no part of that section which prohibits lower courts from being able to raise a hand and ask “Question?”

              As such your original point has not stood, and was already disproven a week ago. It has since been explained to you many times since, and you still play ignorant to the constitution so your attempt at playing “broken record” will somehow win the argument you tried to make and lost a week ago now. Until such time as the Judge in Seattle tries to take the case as his own to hear and decide constitutionality on he has not infringed on Article three Section two, you can continue to scream and stomp your foot like a little child all you want but that section of the Constitution has not been violated “Yet.” That has been pointed out to you a week ago. Nothing has changed since then.

              The constitution, applicable law, and legal definition all argue against your “point”. Now this may be the toughest pill for you to swallow, but your opinion does not over rule fact or what the constitution says. You were wrong a week ago, and you are still wrong today. I explained why a week ago, and I’m still explaining why today as you continue to ignore the facts AND THE CONSTITUTION because you don’t like what the factual and constitutional answer is. This has been pointed out using your own words, quoting you directly and pointing out YOUR COMMENTS which directly conflict with each other. While trying to scream “Article Three Section Two!” over and over again, you are changing and attempting to evolve your own definitions and rules each time they have been proven false. You wanted to wade into the room and show everyone how smart you were and that you were the one who really stood for the constitution, but you have only embarrassed yourself and showed everyone that you will argue against the constitution when it doesn’t say what you want it to say. You are no different than Barrack Obama and David Hogg, and I am still laughing my head off at this.

              I have answered (and “Splained”, Mr. Ricardo) your question. Since you have not figured it out yet, I’m going to explain just what it is I have done to you. You have been here almost as long as I have, and perhaps remember the days of “Gil”. In all that time my tactic has never changed in all the years I have been here. I manipulate and keep a subject talking once they have made a false point and try to forcefully argue it. I do not try to shut them up, but instead use psychological triggers to slowly work and goad the individual into commenting more while only slowly feeding in a fraction of the evidence that disproved their argument/lie from the minute they made it, keeping them going even when they want to play Democrat and say “I don’t like the rules so I am taking my ball and going home”. But yet each time as they try to tell me that I am not worth their time, or how they are not “Replying just to appease me” they come back time and time again, making an even bigger fool out of themselves until such time as I have coerced them into destroying any reputation or credibility they may have accumulated on Ammoland with their own words and actions. So do you know what will happen now for anyone who reads through our back and forth? They are going to see your questions, and they are going to see my answers explaining where and most importantly why the constitution applies where it does, what the reach and limitations of the sections are, what it would take for a violation to occur, and what the constitution calls for to guard against violations. When they look at my questions and predictions of how you would act and ignore having to answer them, they are going to see you follow what I described pretty much to the letter time and time again. When they read my statement questioning whether or not you have the balls to man up and honestly answer for cases where you yourself had a directly opposing double standard, they are going to watch as with each response you try to avoid, wiggle, and squirm like a slimy politician who just got caught with a hooker by his wife the day before the photos are leaked to the news. And the only honest answer they are going to have is “Boy, Tionico did exactly what the Revelator said he would do and can’t answer his question, exactly the way TR explained it. I guess he really doesn’t have any balls after all.”

              Furthermore, you continue to explore and pioneer new and innovative ways to embarrass yourself. This time, it is simple math. Maybe word problems just aren’t your strong suit, but since you apparently have trouble with it let me explain. I was taking odds. This means for anyone taking my bet it would have been my $10 against their cash. If they won, I would only have to pay $10, while if they lost I would collect $30. When you offer, or “Give” odds, you are telling someone that the first number in the sequence (I.E. 2:1 or 3:1) is the amount by which you agree to cover their bet (or for every dollar of theirs you would match $2 for a 2:1 bet). As the ratio climbs higher as the odds for the giver improve this becomes known as a “Longshot”. When the holder is taking odds however, and the odds improve at higher and higher ratios this is known as a “Sucker” bet. In otherwords, not only did you do exactly what I said you would do and would have won me the bet had it been open to you, show everyone here that you even suckered yourself on odds so low that it was obvious, but you also showed by your actions that concepts such as Whole numbers, Real numbers, fractions, and elementary level math are not within your grasp. I would not hold my breath for anyone here to be requesting your help with their taxes anytime soon. If you wonder how I can laugh with such mirth as I sit here and write replies to you, this simple section explains it in full.

              Would you like to go another round Mr Rocket man? I am in no way a Trump fan boy, but as far as comparisons go, you puffing up your chest thinking your little question in this last post was somehow going to turn things around for you is a bit like that myopic blob thinking his country is a match for the USA, and about as intelligent as his haircut. In otherwords, the response to pebble you just tried to bounce of my Abrams was “fire, and fury, and frankly power, the likes of which you have never seen before.” Honestly, and I hear this from many good people, many people, it was yuge!!

            11. Amusing you are……

              the “case” is the one with the names of EIGHT states and the district of Columbia, against Defense Distributed and perhaps another named respondent or two, but YOU know which matter I refer.

              That “case” falls amongst the “all cases in which a STATE is a party”, which I referenced earlier multple times.
              That Article declares that ALL such cases can ONLY be taken up by SCOTUS on original jurisdiction. Judge shopping and sending this CASE to the two bit no-count Seattle circus court judge is NOT the proper place to file that…. and the cleark of the court over which this clown presides never should have accepted it, no jurisdictioin. What that Article and Section declare is that NO SUCH CASE can be handled, looked at, examined, decided upon at any level. I know ful well what an injunction is. Ain’t stupid, and maybe I fell off the turnip truck but that did not happen last week.

              If I am caught carrying my handgun in the local post office by a small town cop, HE lacks the authority to charge me, as that is a federal level offense and the local town court cannot handle it at all. I can, and likely will, move to quash on the issue of jurisdiction…. this court don’t have none…. nohow. Not over a fed issue. (remember Sheriff Joe wanting to deal with illegal foreign invaders a few years back, and the kinyun sent his goons round to “educate” him…. and he was prevented from enforcing federal immigration law, as taht is a fed issue, not state or county.

              same sort of a deal.

              By the way an injunction IS indeed a form of ruling. No, its not a final adjudication on the matter, but for a judge to open up and examine the pleading papers on a legal case and then decide the respondent cannot do what he is doing, and order him to cease and desist until…… whatever the judge decides, IS a ruling.. a ruling that Charlie can’t sell his book until the issue of copyright is settled. That IS a ruling.

              Further, that Art 3 Sec 2 does not prohibit certain courts from RULING on the proscribed categories of cases at law, it prohibits ALL courts except SCOTUS from handling those cases in any way. Original jurisdiction means THAT court gets it first, and no one else can handle the matter at all. Now this two bit seattle “judge” has entered his judgement that Defense Distributed cannot distribute the files for some indefinite time, he HAS judged and ruled….that respondent cannot exercise his RIGHT to freely publish information, and the judge has done this where he has no authority.
              Simple.

              Take my thirty dollars and find a local church that has a family desitute because of come calamity came and visited them, and give it to their fund to help them. I don’t want your money…..

            12. @ Tionico

              “the “case” is the one with the names of EIGHT states and the district of Columbia, against Defense Distributed and perhaps another named respondent or two, but YOU know which matter I refer.”

              What you are doing here is trying to conflate the act of Hearing the case with acknowledging that multiple parties have raised a question asking for constitutional Clarification. This act is a lie because you are trying to redefine the act as if the case has already been heard and tried. It has not. You are lying here hoping that there are people here dumb enough to buy into your con.

              “That Article declares that ALL such cases can ONLY be taken up by SCOTUS on original jurisdiction. ”

              Here, you try to state the the judge, acknowledging that such a case has constitutional bearing (But not stating for or against) is the same as claiming and usurping constitutional jurisdiction. It is not.

              “What that Article and Section declare is that NO SUCH CASE can be handled, looked at, examined, decided upon at any level.”

              Its funny, but as I read that section over and over, it does not say that. In fact I love that you are ignoring the secondary clause as part of that Article. “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” As pointed out, Congress has authority to grant inferior courts with judiciary power provided it does not violate any section of the constitution, just as Article three Section two may not invalidate any other section of the constitution. That is the part you keep trying to ignore. As long as congress does not try to grant authority to hear and rule on matters of a case, it does have the authority to grant Federal circuit courts subservient to the Supreme Court of the united states to place a TEMPORARY pause on an action to hold only until the Supreme Court either grants or denies a hearing on the case. If it denies it, the circuit court Judge’s stay is removed, as the original ruling such a decision would revert to is the settlement agreed to by the Justice department since the Circuit Judge would not have the ability to rule on constitutionality. THIS IS A KEY DISTINCTION, and one that you desperately want to cover up with a lie because it shows that Article three Section two has not been violated yet. The emphasis is on the word “Yet”.

              “By the way an injunction IS indeed a form of ruling. No, its not a final adjudication on the matter, but for a judge to open up and examine the pleading papers on a legal case and then decide the respondent cannot do what he is doing, and order him to cease and desist until…”

              I love this section, as it explicitly shows you are trying to wiggle in wording that is not found within the Constitution to suit your purposes for defending what is not stated within the Article you claim it to be. “No, its not a final adjudication on the matter….” Right there, there it is. For an Injunction to become a defacto ‘ruling’ it needs to have force of law, or in laymen’s terms, it needs to be permanent and enforceable. Congress has authority to grant federal lower courts with this ability only up until such time as that lower court would try to take the power and authority of the Supreme Court granted under section two to apply it as permanent. Legal definitions and the Constitution do not morph and change just because Tionico is throwing a tempertantrum for not getting his way.

              “Further, that Art 3 Sec 2 does not prohibit certain courts from RULING on the proscribed categories of cases at law, it prohibits ALL courts except SCOTUS from handling those cases in any way.”

              No, What Original jurisdiction means is that only the Supreme court may TRY(See also Hear) and EITHER CONFIRM OR DENY(see also Rule, or judgement) compliance with the constitutionality of said issue. Again, what you are trying to do here is change legal definitions, insert wording into the constitution that is not there, and demand that everyone else agree to these changes in spite of the fact that last time we checked the constitution does not give that authority or jurisdiction to Tionico at all. I tried to explain to you how I operate before, and you chose not to listen because you were still hoping that you might somehow find a “Gotcha” moment where you could make me pay for making you look like a complete and utter buffoon while at the same time pointing out each lie and double standard you yourself are responsible for.

              And now, as you continue to try and get out of the hole you have dug for yourself by digging faster and deeper, you show yet again that you do not know how the constitution works. Article six paragraph two states “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Laws passed in accordance with the constitution have the full authority of the constitution and every judge within the united states are bound to it since it is the supreme law of the land. This is why we have checks and balances, and Amendments are the only method to over ride what has been previously acceptable. Because of this we also have the Ninth and Tenth amendments which balance this out and enforce the Amendment process. It is under these rules that just as congress has authority over creating and defining courts, it also has authority under Article Six to request the help of state level law enforcement for the purpose of aiding federal law enforcement in their duties during the pursuance of state LEO’s duties. Shall I “splain” it again?

              “If I am caught carrying my handgun in the local post office by a small town cop, HE lacks the authority to charge me, as that is a federal level offense and the local town court cannot handle it at all. I can, and likely will, move to quash on the issue of jurisdiction”

              That cop may absolutely arrest and hold you for Federal law enforcement. As previously stated, Article Six grants congress sole authority to do so as the legislative branch. Furthermore, as expressly stated every single court, and official remotely related to the law(in essence everyone in the US) must operate with the Constitution as supreme law of the land, not partially, not just the parts we agree with, but the entirety of the Constitution. I particularly like the word at the end of that clause, “Notwithstanding”. Linguistically, the founders put it here as a preposition, a governing word to state that because the Constitution is supreme, it over rides all state and local rule making which seeks to exempt said parties. As such, for violating federal law, not only could a local officer arrest you, but a local or state court can order you be held for Federal law enforcement to come charge you and take you before a federal court. By your argument, any attempt you make on jurisdiction arguments would fail because Congress has power via the constitution. Now, where you might argue this instead is on the basis of the second amendment guarantee of bearing arms due to our right to life, and therefore our right to defend and protect that life. However, this does not extend to all locations, as individuals also have property rights, and your rights do not over rule theirs even in their place of business. The important facet to remember here is that while they have a right to choose who they let in the door, but when they do they become responsible for that individual, and thus if they fail in that responsibility they may be held financially and criminally liable.

              Finally, as stated before, you apparently have still not read what the bet was, that I would only have to pay $10 if I lost, and that basic math, positive and negative numbers, and fractions are too complex for you to understand. Even further, it appears now that you are wishing to offer to send $30 dollars to add to what I contribute charitably. So how do you want to work it? Shall I just name where you should send a check payable to? In case you have not figured it out yet, you did nothing to win the $10 I bet, because the bet was that for me to lose you would have had to honestly answer the question I asked of you on August 8th, 2018 at 9:44PM. To date, you have not answered the question. I even stipulated that it was obvious that you would not be able to answer the question because your ego would not allow you to admit that you lied or tried to practice a double standard when it was proven already that you did. To attempt to claim money from a bet you did not make, and by your own admission of action to win the bet shows that you lost it if you are attempting to say you took the bet in the first place?! Let me put this into words, because there are so many. You didn’t go 10% retard, you didn’t go 30% retard. You chose to go 100% full flipping retard. Choosing Ammoland to display a level of stupidity equivalent only with that of someone who believes a cesspit to be a freshwater spring, where once posted comments are for all intents and purposes locked in place forever more for anyone to look and see what Tionico is saying is completely false, and that Tionico believes he can pretend those questions and statements have disappeared…

              Let me sum it up. Since you decided to try and open your latest comment as though you might be channeling Yoda, because your “I love Lucy” reference worked out for you oh so well before, here is my response to your opening phrase.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI

      2. No a federal judge is not God. He cannot make Law our regulation. He is bound by his office to rule according to the Constitution, the laws passed pursuant to it and regulations that follow their statute authority and the Constitution.

        Where in Gods name did you get the notion that a judge can make up rules as they go?

        You individuals who are so quick to apppeal to authority don’t have a bloody clue about the Constitution and how it works. You have been spoon fed this swill with your empty brain for so long you are able to be led like cattle. The People are the authority, it specifically states this in the Constitution. There is no authority written in the Constitution that authorizes the government to regulate the arms the People possess. Find it and I will pay you $1000.00. Everyone here is witness.

        So how is a judge able to rule on an authority that does not exist?

        Maybe you see the clear logic here. It is exactly the way the Framers wrote it and there is no amendment changing it. That is why the Framers put the amendment process in the Constitution, to keep government, including judges, see Article III, from arbitrarily expanding the authority they were delegated.

        The wormy politicians can get writers cramp writing legislation that will never be signed into law. Their time is up, they know it and this their attempt to restrict the free flow of information. They are scared they will be a victim of their own corruption when justice comes knocking.

        “The People – – the People are the rightful masters of congress and the courts. Not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow those men who pervert the Constitution.”
        Abraham Lincoln, 1959

        They deserve it!

        1. @Dennis

          I’m going to quote two lines from what you wrote.

          “No a federal judge is not God.” Very good. On this we agree.

          “Where in Gods name did you get the notion that a judge can make up rules as they go?”

          This second quote however tells me you did not read my entire comment in depth, much less the constitution. You were so quick and angry in needing to respond that you didn’t have a bloody clue about what I was saying or quoting from. Please lead the response I just left for Tionico as well as going back and reading each comment under the original from Vanns40 before responding again.

          If you had slowed down just a little bitt, you might actually have found out you would like having a discussion with someone like me, as I feel the Constitution prevents the Government of any level from regulating the type of Arms we are allowed to possess. That includes machine guns, firearms of any lengths, any type of blades, or the accoutrements necessary to use them. However, the case under discussion is not regulation of arms, but regulation of speech.

          Take a little time, slow down and read everything fully, then come back and we can talk if you want.

      1. It’s called “venue”. However, there is no authority for the judge to create regulation or law. This is strictly an authority issue. The court does have jurisdiction as it regards items under federal control.

        Jurisdiction is the authority to hear,
        Venue, is the place where a crime, breach of regulation or other act occurred in which the court has jurisdiction,
        Authority, what authority does the judge have, he may only rule in pursuance of a matter clearly defined in the Constitution, statutes passed in pursuance thereof and regulatory constructs supported by same.

        He, or she, cannot make shite up as they go along. That is why we have a written Constitution so we can keep check on our servants and they cannot become tyrants over night.

        They run the government we consented to. They don’t get to change it on a whim or their damned feelings!

    4. There are better things to read that has been on the market for years that would do way better than a piece of shit single shot plastic not worth a rat’s ass 380 pistol.There are books out that would wreck your day. This just shows how smart the left wing liberal snowflakes communist are.My dog is 1000 times smarter than a democrat.

      1. Students on a piano play ChopSticks because they are learning. The “plastic gun” that looks like an AR lower trigger dummy is CNC ChopSticks.
        A “plastic printer” is just a different kind of machine tool with a programming language.
        If you’ve got a few hundred thousand to spare, buy a “metal laser printer” or a CNC machining station and blocks of 7075 and 6061 and duplicate a start-up gun factory.
        I figure the “government” knows I am a gun owner and a patriot since I’ve been an NRA Life member for 52 years. I have also purchased hunting and fishing licenses and currently have a Kansas Lifetime combo license. I have a CCHL in Kansas.
        I’ve been writing newspapers and government offices for nearly 60 years.
        Most of the guns I owned were bought from the FFL where I worked. The owner died and the stack of 4473 and his record books probably went to the ATFabout 50 years ago.
        I don’t have any cache of guns and ammo buried under 50 feet of dirt with a railroad tracks and a highway above them.
        If I win the lottery I’ll buy some land, maybe 30,000 acres or so. I’ll build a complex with a residence, shops, a horse and a cow barn, machinery sheds and a machine shop and foundry where I’ll forge a few knives just for something constructive to do.
        I will obey the laws and exercise ALL my rights and duties of citizenship.
        The Declaration of Independence says we have a right and a duty to maintain a free condition and if enough citizens understand that the tyrant won’t come out of his cave.

        1. As far as the plastic they were uploading was an single shot 380 if I’m not mistaken.They have been making polymer lowers for years.

    5. Can you make a plastic barrel that can contain multiple bullets fired? Can you make plastic springs? Will plastic hold up to hammer and sear requirements for reliable firearms? Is this much to do about basically nothing except free speech brought on by anti-gunners? Seems to me like a lot of BS not worthy of the first lawsuit. Go get’em, Defense Distributed!

      1. Some idiot will probably try to fire one and wind up in surgery. Hmmmm, Maybe make a bunch and market them to the left. Incognito, of course. recommend they use reloads w/red dot . . This is a suggestion made in sarcastic jest.

        1. For the chambering they designed it for it is safe to fire, but is a limited use weapon. The purpose of which was to make those on the left who are anti-gun know that everyone can now have a firearm without their permission or oversight.

          Don’t you think that is a better punishment?

            1. @ Wild Bill

              I wish I could claim the concept as my own, but I can’t. It’s World War Two history there, just restated for todays situation.

    6. Federal judge in Seattle blocks release of blueprints for 3D-printed …
      https://www.seattletimes.com/…/federal-judge-in-seattle-blocks-release-of-blueprints-for-…
      21 hours ago – U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnik in Seattle issued a temporary … This plastic pistol was made on a 3D printer at a home in Austin, Texas. … The lawsuit challenges the outcome of a 2015 case that began in 2013 when …

      A Bill Clinton appointee

    7. Anyone know the NAME of that rotter “judge” in Seattle Any chance his name is Robart? If so that guy is a danger to America. That’s two strikes.

      This whole thing is hilarious in one great sense… the “powers that think they be” are refusing to admit that they are NOT in control. About time. READ that corny old sheep wrapper with the fifty four signatures on it, penned in July of 1776. Do they forget RULE NUMBER ONE about government? That the governed can only be governed bt their own consent?

      Silly gooses forget.. there IS no reverse. The ship has sailed, The cat is out of the bag. The milk is spilt. The horse has escaped the barn AND paddock. The airbag has deployed, and there’s NO stuffing it back behind that ripped plastic cover in the middle of the steering wheel.

    8. This really gives them something to get their panties in a wad over and they will make the most of it. Leave it to a loser like Blumenthaul to run his big mouth and try to circumvent the Constitution and Bill of Rights (remember him, the one who lied about being in Nam).

    9. “It is a perfect storm of overreaction and lack of understanding of current laws and technology.”
      And a hatred of freedom, the Constitution, the BOR, & free thinking, independent citizens.
      The feeling is mutual.

    10. I got up this morning and what do I seek my local Birdcage liner. Democrat/Commie senators Markey and Blumenthal posing with a picture of two AR-15 rifles purported to be plastic guns. These Ass clowns have absolutely no shame whatsoever!

      1. Well technically aluminum, steel and composites ARE plastic. They just aren’t made in a test tube like the leaders of the tyrant wannabees.
        But the news is happy reporting that a Federal Judge enjoined the Defense Distributed hours after the files were already on dozens if not hundreds of file sharing computers.
        These idiot legislators are unable to read and understand the Constitution or the history books. John Browning did not have a CNC machine. He might not have had a degree in math or a slide rule. But he had files, hammers and a brain.

    11. Just talking about the weather here and it’s rainy and humid (keep reading) while I’m reading about folks trying to find these files so they can download them even though they never want to build a gun ( KEEP READING).

      Ya know it’s the whole free speech thing which can be furthered by
      (http://codeisfreespeech.com/) copying the link and sharing it and also saving the files for yourself, if you find them……ah, now, back to the weather…..thank me later 🙂

      1. OK, what am I missing here? That link goes to something called Parallels H-Sphere. I get a dialog box with this:

        “This is the default H-Sphere server page. From here you are able to access the following services:
        Web Utilities:
        WebShell4—file manager

        If this page is not what you wanted to get, most probably, one of the one of the following situations occured:

        Domain name refers to H-Sphere logical server, e.g., web.service-domain.com
        Third-level domain name does not exist. Maybe, you typed it incorrectly, e.g., valeed-domain .example.com instead of valid-domain.example.com
        Domain incorrectly points to this H-Sphere server.”

        There is a link to WebShell4–file manager. Clicking on that leads to a login screen. This login screen does not have any apparent means to create an account if you don’t already have one. Clicking on Parallels H-Sphere in the upper left of the screen goes to software allowing one to run Windows on an Apple Macintosh…

        1. Buzz and others: The ISP took down the site. However, I have them. If you want them email me at:
          [email protected]

          From the time you email me it may take a few days, I’m a little busy but I will get them to you.

    12. Printing plastic is a lot like what your dentist does when he hardens a filling in your tooth with an UV light. A laser prints in a pool of liquid plastic and hardens the plastic. The plastic isn’t sprayed like ink.
      Sometimes they make complicated shapes to be cast as aluminum or steel by the Investment Casting process.
      But even if “printing” firearms is blocked, technology is worldwide. Will the USA cripple America while Russia and China forge ahead.
      Technology will soon allow using high energy lasers to make steel or aluminum “printed parts” from laser fused powdered metal.

      1. Metal printing technology exists today. The problem with it is that such a printer costs well over $100K. Commonly, Multi-axis CNC machines such as the Ghost Gunner II are confused with 3D printers.

        The real issue at hand is that politicians are not really concerned with “Printed Guns”, but with the fact that we as Americans have the right to manufacture our own personal firearms without the intent to register and sell them. That is what they hate. Look at what the idiot Richard “Wet Bloomers” Blumenthal just introduced for a proposed law. He is trying to define Ghost guns as “Any firearm that is unserialized and unregistered”. They are not trying to stop 3D printing. What they are trying to stop is DIY Americans practicing their liberties in their own garages.

        1. @Rev, Yes, that is the ulterior motive that is the Fifth Amendment substantive due process violation. I am so happy with my fellow Americans that have ignored a pea brained, leftist federal judge. That single act shows who the real boss is.

          1. I disagree, the ultimate goal is a complete is to do away with the entire Constitutions itself. The Meueller witch hunt is just another prong in their pitchfork. If they can invalidate a duly eleccted president then the Constitution is moot.

        2. Yes, before THEY could shop a federal judge in the 9th Circuit, the State Department had issued an export license and the files are out there in the Internet. That means the data to run a printer, a CNC machining station, a home shop with a lathe and milling machine, a car garage with a brake drum lathe or a valve grinder can make any gun.
          If they have to the home shop can make a barrel from a salvaged steel alloy truck or car drive shaft. A receiver can be made with steel or aluminum weldments with a TiG .
          Maybe making the springs will be the most difficult parts to fabricate

    13. The state department in 2015 said sharing the files would be like driving to Mexico and handing out guns….sounds like Fast and Furious to me.
      Have they forgot what they did.

      1. But THEY did the Fast and Furious shit so THAT was completely OK and legal… You know the old “do as we say, not as we do” syndrome.

    Leave a Comment 61 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *