The photo has been used for illustrative purposes.
Erik Larson, Tribune News Service
It’s a question of who’s violating the US Constitution when it comes to print-at-home guns — the federal agency accused of recklessly deregulating the weapons or the states that claim they’re a threat to public safety.
A federal judge could provide an answer any day now — and address the balance of power between states and the federal government — in a ruling on digital blueprints that a small gun-technology company, Defense Distributed, wants to publish online for anyone with a 3-D printer.
The Obama administration blocked the company’s publishing effort for years on the grounds that it would violate an arms-export law, but the State Department reversed course in June 2018 and gave Defense Distributed a green light. The company’s website called it “our most famous victory.”
The states quickly sued, seeking to invalidate a settlement that had been negotiated quietly between the federal government and Defense Distributed. President Donald Trump publicly criticized printable guns while his administration defended the deal.
“The evidence shows that the State Department failed to consider the national security implications of deregulation in light of the unique properties of untraceable, undetectable, 3D-printable plastic firearms,” the states said.
The suit claims the accord violates the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution by eroding the state’s police powers. Austin, Texas-based Defense Distributed says the states are violating the First Amendment by restricting what it can publish. Both sides asked a federal judge in Seattle to rule in their favor without a trial, making their arguments in a series of court filings over the summer.
A ruling could come at any time, and appeals are likely.
Defense Distributed says the entire country is being harmed by the effort to block “digital gunsmiths” from accessing the blueprints, comparing the dispute to past state efforts to stop school desegregation or gay marriage. Making gun blueprints available online is a quintessential free-speech right, no different from speaking on a street corner or publishing a book, it says.
“Recalcitrant states want an order forcing federal officials to re-impose that unconstitutional regime on the theory that the ‘First Amendment is irrelevant,’” the company said in a June filing.
The free-speech fight was envisioned as early as 2012 by former Defense Distributed chief executive officer Cody Wilson, who recruited a team to develop “the first entirely 3-D printed pistol” dubbed the Liberator, according to the group’s website. He was eager for a fight, and compared his company to WikiLeaks.
“Wilson directed a new, free speech approach to undermining the ideological forces of American gun control,” the website says. “The Wiki Weapon Project is the philosophical and practical cornerstone of all Defense Distributed efforts.”
G.S. Hans, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School who isn’t involved in the case, said the lawsuit is complicated because of strong First Amendment principles allowing for publication of code online.
The states, led by Washington, argue that under the 10th Amendment, police power is a “critical function reserved to the states.”
The settlement “purports to allow any US citizen to manufacture and use an undetectable and untraceable weapon — regardless of their age, mental health status, or criminal history — in violation of Washington’s public safety laws,” the states said.
The State Department is also seeking to have the suit thrown out, but the government’s filings don’t come out in support of printable guns.
“Manufacture or possession of plastic guns that are undetectable is a serious federal crime, punishable by up to five years in prison,” the agency said in the first line of a March filing with the court. “The Department of Justice, among other agencies, enforces this prohibition, and will continue to do so vigorously.”
Instead, the agency argues that the arms-export law simply doesn’t apply to blueprints marketed toward domestic users. The law is intended to block export of arms to potential enemies abroad, it says.
The lawsuit “misunderstands the nature of the Department of State’s authority,” government lawyers argued.
Free speech aside, the company argues that the suit is pointless because the files have already been downloaded millions of times during a brief period when they weren’t blocked.
“The whole world already has the files at issue, and always will,” Defense Distributed said in a filing.
The “manifesto” purportedly posted by the shooter accused of last weekend’s mass murder in El Paso, Texas, is in many respects typical of the genre – a dim mix of self-pity, self-aggrandizement and sub-sophomoric musings making a stab in the direction of philosophy. The first section is aptly titled “About Me.”
The issue of gun control has been vexing the powers-that-be in the US for decades. Nearly 40,000 Americans died in 2017 from shootings. This is a statistic that should send shock waves across people in any country, not just the US. It may lead one to the
President Biden is making a first step to addressing gun control by requiring checks on “Ghost Guns”, not guns that make people ghosts but guns that are not regulated and are untraceable. The idea that these can be homemade or bought online by anyone is
Charity doesn’t rely on wealth. It relies on attitude. And heavily so. One can be rich, but poor at heart when it comes to helping the poor. That is why one was really happy to read about a Filipina’s effort to help those felled by the ever-growing, unsparing and
Ioane Teitiota and his wife fought for years to stay in New Zealand as refugees, arguing that rising sea levels caused by climate change threaten the very existence of the tiny Pacific island nation they fled, one of the lowest-lying countries on Earth.
After almost a year, the country finally received the verdict in the case against former Minneapolis officer Derek Chauvin, who murdered George Floyd last May by pressing his knee into Floyd’s neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds. To our collective
The 11-year-old returned to the classroom last Thursday. The actual, physical IRL classroom on the second floor of her Venice elementary school. Inside, she and eight other fifth graders sat at well-spaced desks, many looking as if they’d died and gone to heaven.