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.
I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn’t seem to make much sense!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2018
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 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.
@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… Read more »
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.
@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.
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.
Yup, and still going.
Big fat nothing burger. Wonder what is happening in the news that they are distracting us with this issue?
@Cam: He’s a Federal Judge and he does have the authority.
@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… Read more »
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.… Read more »
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.
@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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
@ 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,… Read more »
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… Read more »
@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… Read more »
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.
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,… Read more »
@ 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
@ 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
@Capt. Shep 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… Read more »
I would disregard the TRO, fudge doesn’t have authority or Jurisdiction!
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… Read more »
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.
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… Read more »
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.
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!
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.
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?
@Rev, I think that is the best thing that you have ever written!
@ 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.
Federal judge in Seattle blocks release of blueprints for 3D-printed …
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
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… Read more »
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).
The files are already floating around Facebook so what are they gonna do turn the internet off?
The Genie is already out of the bottle. This is a done deal. They might as well go home and read a book.
they all went to gummit skewlz and can’t read. Cartoons?
“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.
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!
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.
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
(https://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 🙂
I’ll thank you now. THANKS, AND GOOD WORK!
They are closing the harbor after that ship sailed.
@Vann, I sent the free speech item to everyone that I know.
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… Read more »
Buzz and others: The ISP took down the site. However, I have them. If you want them email me at:
From the time you email me it may take a few days, I’m a little busy but I will get them to you.
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.
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… Read more »
@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.
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.
@JDC, You are agreeing, but you just do not know it.
I’m disagreeing to the minimal goal I wanted to point out the ultimate goal.
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… Read more »
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.
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.
Thanks for the reminder to donate to The Second Amendment foundation. I think I owe them one.