Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Friday May 08 2015, @12:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the right-to-make-arms dept.

THIS WEEK MARKS the two-year anniversary since Cody Wilson, the inventor of the world’s first 3-D printable gun, received a letter from the State Department demanding that he remove the blueprints for his plastic-printed firearm from the internet. The alternative: face possible prosecution for violating regulations that forbid the international export of unapproved arms.

Now Wilson is challenging that letter. And in doing so, he’s picking a fight that could pit proponents of gun control and defenders of free speech against each other in an age when the line between a lethal weapon and a collection of bits is blurrier than ever before.

Wilson’s gun manufacturing advocacy group Defense Distributed, along with the gun rights group the Second Amendment Foundation, on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the State Department and several of its officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry. In their complaint, they claim that a State Department agency called the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) violated their first amendment right to free speech by telling Defense Distributed that it couldn’t publish a 3-D printable file for its one-shot plastic pistol known as the Liberator, along with a collection of other printable gun parts, on its website.

In its 2013 letter to Defense Distributed, the DDTC cited a long-controversial set of regulations known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which controls whether and how Americans can sell weapons beyond U.S. borders. By merely posting a 3-D-printable file to a website, in other words, the DDTC claimed Defense Distributed had potentially violated arms export controls—just as if it had shipped a crate of AR-15s to, say, Mexico. But the group’s lawsuit now argues that whether or not the Liberator is a weapon, its blueprints are “speech,” and that Americans’ freedom of speech is protected online—even when that speech can be used to make a gun with just a few clicks.

http://www.wired.com/2015/05/3-d-printed-gun-lawsuit-starts-war-arms-control-free-speech/

Here’s the full complaint from Defense Distributed: https://www.scribd.com/doc/264435890/Defense-Distributed-et-al-v-U-S-Dept-of-State

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday May 08 2015, @04:57PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 08 2015, @04:57PM (#180385) Journal

    Yeah, I suppose that I'd have to agree that there is some line somewhere, regarding what a private citizen should own. At the very least, every citizen should be entitled to own any weapon that his local police department is permitted to own. Flash bang? Yep. If the cops can have them, then you and your neighbor should be permitted to get them. Automatic weapons? Ditto. I'm not aware of any crew served weapons owned by police departments - but if they are buying them, then you should be able to do so as well.

    I'm kinda partial to naval guns, myself, but they lack mobility. Maybe a 105 mm recoilless rifle - it has the maritime tradition, easily portable behind almost anything larger than a Jeep, and it makes moderately large boom-booms at a respectable distance. I doubt that Wal-Mart stocks ammo for it though.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2