Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Thursday July 12 2018, @11:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the Maybe-Don't-Try-this-at-home dept.

For those in the US with a combined interest in 3D-Printers, intersections of the 1st and 2nd Amendments, and legal precedents; Cody Wilson has been fighting the US Government for half a decade.

Short version: after Wilson uploaded his 3D pistol plans to his site, over 100,000 people downloaded it - this drew the attention of the US authorities, who tried to use the International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to force a take-down.

The authorities argued that by posting the 3D printer plans for a firearm, Mr. Wilson was effectively exporting firearms, and subject to federal regulation. Eventually the Department of Justice dropped the case, paving the way for DIY'ers to publish such things freely.

The article cites 'promises' made by DoJ to move the regulations to another department.

Wired's article: A Landmark Legal Shift Opens Pandora's Box for DIY Guns (archive)

Related: The $1,200 Machine That Lets Anyone Make a Metal Gun at Home
Japanese Gun Printer Goes to Jail
Suspected 3D-Printed Gun Parts and Plastic Knuckles Seized in Australia
FedEx Refuses to Ship Defense Distributed's Ghost Gunner CNC Mill
Man Who Used CNC Mill to Manufacture AR-15 "Lowers" Sentenced to 41 Months
Ghost Gunner Software Update Allows the Milling of an M1911 Handgun


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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 hemocyanin on Friday July 13 2018, @06:24AM (2 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Friday July 13 2018, @06:24AM (#706536) Journal

    In Heller, Scalia walked the Miller decision way back. Miller was a weird case anyway -- the defendant died before the appeal and only the Government presented any argument or briefing. Miller's and Heller's discussions of short barreled shotguns may have different had there been some sort defense by Miller because way back when, when highway robbery was a real thing, Ithica manufactured a short barreled shotgun for defensive purposes, the Ithica Auto & Burglar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf_ENP3QyAE [youtube.com]

    We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html [cornell.edu]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14 2018, @02:39AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 14 2018, @02:39AM (#706889)

    I love that phrasing -- it would be "startling" for the previous decision to mean what it plainly says, so let's find something else for it to mean.

    • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday July 14 2018, @05:14AM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Saturday July 14 2018, @05:14AM (#706949) Journal

      Personally, I think Scalia danced around Miller because if he overruled it, there would be a serious question about whether it is Constitutional to ban automatic firearms.