Cody Wilson and the Second Amendment Foundation are fighting the good fight against some extremely restrictive ITAR regulations that have put the kibosh on Defense Distributed’s 3D printed firearms files. It looks like the first skirmish in that battle has gone to the government, with a Texas judge denying a preliminary injunction that would have allowed Defense Distributed to distribute their CAD files online again. TTAG has exclusively obtained the judge’s order, and while an immediate appeal has already been filed, there are still some real gems in here that show how the legal system thinks about the Second Amendment and free speech in general. Hint: it ain’t good . . .
From the order (available in full here):
While the founding fathers did not have access to such technology, Plaintiffs maintain the ability to manufacture guns falls within the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs suggest, at the origins of the United States, blacksmithing and forging would have provided citizens with the ability to create their own firearms, and thus bolster their ability to “keep and bear arms.” While Plaintffs’ logic is appealing, Plaintiffs do not cite any authority for this proposition, nor has the Court located any. The Court further finds telling that in the Supreme Court’s exhaustive historical analysis set forth in Heller, the discussion of the meaning of “keep and bear arms” did not touch in any way on an individual’s right to manufacture or create those arms. The Court is thus reluctant to find the ITAR regulations constitute a burden on the core of the Second Amendment.
In other words, while you absolutely have the right to keep and bear arms, there’s nothing that protects the right to manufacture those firearms. Or so this specific judge says. That could have broad reaching implications for people who manufacture their own guns using 80% receivers, and possibly open the door for a whole new line of attack for gun control activists. Because if the manufacture of guns isn’t protected under the 2nd Amendment, then what’s stopping anti-gun states from declaring all manufacture illegal and running gun makers out of business?
There are a lot more concerning things in the document regarding the first amendment protections and how they don’t apply in the judge’s estimation, but this one is probably the most concerning for gun owners.
“what’s stopping anti-gun states from declaring all manufacture illegal and running gun makers out of business?”
Nothing at all, except the desire to retain well-paying, technically skilled jobs. And that doesn’t seem to have stopped at least some of them. (Hello Colorado!)
But they don’t need to make gun manufacture illegal per see, they just need to make it so hard to do business that the manufacturers leave voluntarily.
“But they don’t need to make gun manufacture illegal per see, they just need to make it so hard to do business that the manufacturers leave voluntarily.”
– See Remington and the State of New York
“what’s stopping anti-business states from declaring all manufacture illegal and running gun manufacturers out of business?”
Nothing at all, except the desire to retain well-paying, technically skilled jobs. And that doesn’t seem to have stopped many of them.
But they don’t need to make manufacture illegal per see, they just need to make it so hard to do business that the manufacturers leave voluntarily.
Fixed it for you.
Are you a management consultant or an MBA or something? You fixed a part that wasn’t very broken but left something that was – and you want credit for a fix.
Actually, there is a legal principle that would help if all or effectively all gun manufacturers were closed down, rendered unviable or driven out (techniques applied in pre-contact Japan and ably documented by Noel Perrin in Giving Up The Gun).
Although there is no intrinsic and essential extension of a right to keep and bear arms to a right to manufacture them, as something that would follow always and everywhere, there is a principle that a right also confers a consequential right to anything necessary to the enjoyment of that right – necessary, that is, under the circumstances. So, while it is possible to obtain guns from manufacturers, there is no consequential right for people to make their own (I am not touching on whether there is any separate or distinct right to do that), though there is a consequential right to obtain guns from manufacturers if that is the only realistic way of getting them. Contrariwise, as, when and if there were no accessible gun manufacturers or means to obtain guns from them, or realistic alternative sources, then a consequential right for people to make their own guns would arise from any rights they had to keep and bear arms. (Similar things apply to ammunition.)
Think of blocking access to arms as being like the way that if you only block one of many exits to a room, you are not detaining anyone inside, but if you block the only exit, or if you act with others so that each blocks just one exit until all are blocked, then you are detaining anyone inside; buying arms is one exit, making your own is another, and so on, so it may be proper and reasonable to block some but not all exits – but that doesn’t specify which may be blocked properly and reasonably, or indeed if any may. As things now are, there is no consequential right to make arms – but one would arise at need, and so keep the prior rights from being vitiated.
This should not be taken as legal authority or advice. It is only for general background information.
Just one detail: we’re guaranteed equality before the law, so if anyone is allowed to make firearms, then everyone is allowed to make firearms.
That’s a nice try, but it doesn’t work. All that equality before the law gives is non-discrimination in the right to apply. It’s quite realistic to give out a limited number of licences to manufacture guns that in practice stops many from manufacturing, whether by a completely random lottery or on the basis of a track record of expertise and/or equipment (favouring current manufacturers in practice) or whatever, so long as people don’t get blocked off from reaching that position – which again comes back to the consequential rights thing.
>> All that equality before the law gives is non-discrimination in the right to apply.
I believe it also requires that any barriers that are imposed on obtaining such a license are applied equally and fairly. E.g. they can’t just declare that there is a list, and that ATF will add companies to that list as they see fit. They must have a list of requirements that is not specific to any entity, and everyone who satisfies them shall be granted a license.
In a statist world you’re right, but in a free country — no. Rights come from below, not from above, which would be necessary for you to be correct.
That, of course, tells us we don’t live in a free country.
PML, “Giving Up the Gun” has been roundly condemned by academics and Japanese historians as fiction. Your premise may be correct, but reliance on Perrin as an authority is unwise. See http://www.sengokufieldmanual.com/2013/02/giving-up-myths-part-i.html + other critiques via Google.
What I was getting at was that Perrin gives a good account of the techniques used. Whether he is accurately bringing out the history of those times and places is a related ussue, but it is not the same thing. Luckily, when it comes to the techniques, we don’t have to ask the question of whether it all actually happened that way but only whether they form a body of tricks that could work and so should be watched out for.
More baloney from activist judges.
A ban on manufacturing arms, just like ammunition bans, is a de facto ban on arms.
This will not pass constitutional muster at SCOTUS.
SCOTUS is a fickle friend. They found Obamacare constitutional and have failed to strike down “may issue” carry. Don’t trust SCOTUS – or any judge – to uphold the law or the constitution. They “find” however they please and write lengthy explanations justifying the destruction of your rights. Any new law only “burdens” the 2nd Amendment if they say so.
On a side note, ammo is at pretty reasonable prices and Palmetto State Armory has good deals on AR-15 and AR-10 lowers.
Apparently Ted doesn’t follow these things very closely. The black robed political hacks of SCOTUS recently refused to hear an appeal of Jackson vs San Francisco, which ruled that it’s OK to require that guns in homes be stored in a manner that makes them inoperable for self defense. This law is a direct slap in the face to the Heller majority and yet SCOTUS refused to hear the appeal. So naturally, smelling blood in the water, the Libtard creeps who run Los Angeles are passing a similar ordinance, as will many other major cities in Commiefornia.
It is pretty clear at this point that a majority of SCOTUS, including Roberts and Kennedy, have no interest in defending Heller and McDonald. And if you think those decisions are carved in stone you are very naïve indeed. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been telling anyone who will listen that both Heller and McDonald will be overturned at the earliest opportunity. All it takes is for one “conservative” justice to be replaced by Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch and we are back to the bad old days again. Really.
What the hell is this at this time arguement? Who cares what they could or couldn’t do then? You fail at understanding rights, progess and any sort of advancement in anything. GFYS.
Cody is going about this all wrong and all he needs to do is follow Phil Zimmermann’s PGP distribution regime. International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) controls the export and import of defense-related articles and services on the United States Munitions List (USML). It has no teeth within the US. All Cody has to do is what Phil did to avoid prosecution under ITAR and distribute the data in a way to ensure it only goes to computers physically located WITHIN the US. Where it goes from there is the next persons responsibility.
a simple rule to only allow downloads from ip blocks assigned to the USA should suffice . And a sign. Everyone knows Signs prevent crimes.
Its not about getting the files distributed (that has already been accomplished), its about establishing the RIGHT to distribute such material.
I recalled previously reading (and just now read again on wiki) that the source for PGP was published in a book first. The argument being that the 1st amendment allowed for for publication. The source could then be read into a computer and compiled.
I’m not familiar with what hes attempting to distribute, but perhaps instead of distributing the binaries, Wilson ought to be distributing a written version of it. That is ascii/hex/plain text as possible in a pdf or doc or any other format he likes. Although using the 2nd amendment as a means to secure this right might be appealing, the 1st has been interpreted much more broadly.
The 1st should apply regardless of the transfer medium used. Information is information, and speech is speech, whether it’s printed on a sheet of paper or put up on a website.
And yes, there already is a precedent saying that First Amendment overrides ITAR in a similar case:
https://www.eff.org/cases/bernstein-v-us-dept-justice
And it may in this case too. A preliminary injunction was denied. Not enough to get my panties in a knot at this stage.
I used to wear a DeCSS tshirt for this very reason. good times..
+1. Forgotten about that.
+1 Gman – good point.
Makes me wonder if the agenda is not just circumventing ITAR, but monetizing his plans. Zimmerman was not attempting to profit from his algorithm. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
So he can’t distribute the files? He’s apparently not trying very hard. Put it on a flash and send it to Sweden. The Pirate Bay guys will have the files online before you can say Jackie Robinson.
Already been done. The files are widely available. Cody’s position/suit is a strategy for setting a legal precedent.
Plans are already available and have been for some time. Tough to stuff the genie back in the bottle or restrict the free flow of information.
Put aside for the moment the technology – 3D printing. Fundamentally, why is the case different than publishing a CNC (computerized numerical control) instructions for machine tools to fabricate a gun?
3-D printing is cheap. Other than cost of machine tools (and pricing most hobbyists out of the market), the distinction is lost on me. My background’s in software and electronics. There may be other aspects of the case that I’m missing.
Major concerns about government efforts to restrict speech – particularly non-commercial speech. Also seems absurd when the Anarchists Cookbook and similar material is readily available online. Will be interesting to see what the legal blogs that focus on constitutional law have to say about this.
I would like to, in some small defense of the great state of Texas, point out that this is a federal judge, not appointed by the Governor, but appointed just last year, by President Obama. Texas judged are elected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Pitman
Inconceivable!
You keep using that word…
“While Plaintffs’ logic is appealing, Plaintiffs do not cite any authority for this proposition, nor has the Court located any.”
WTF!? How about reality as a citation?! One cannot obtain, keep, and bear arms unless they are created/manufactured. The manufacture of arms is therefore intrinsic to the 2nd Amendment. Even the anits don’t believe this judges position, otherwise they would have banned the manufacture and importation of weapons long ago, and just let the supply dwindle to nothing. This judge is full of shit!
Or he had bad counsel – maybe other legal strategy factors?
Nothing better than non-lawyers reading a quote who have no understanding of the constitution or law saying that reality is a citation. Please look up the word citation, please.
Look, we are a nation of laws under the constitution. Constitutional interpretation is based 100% on past history and precedent.
Don’t look for Scalia or anyone of the strict constitutionalists (i.e. if it isn’t in the Constitution you don’t get to stuff it in there because you think it should). There is nothing in the 2nd amendment about the right to manufacture and sell arms.
C’mon guys…you really want change then vote, vote, vote, vote. Might help if a the folks from the gun rights states moved to swing states so their vote matters as well – otherwise you’re just making yourself feel better by posting comments and getting NOTHING done.
Can we send the dimwit judge this Colonial Wiiliamsburg video, or would he dismiss it as an NRA propaganda piece.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lui6uNPcRPA
Thank you for posting that. I fell in love with the flintlock a few years ago, after I’d grown tired of shooting everything else. This reminded me of one of the many reasons I enjoy shooting and hunting with them so much.
Google: From Austin, openly gay, appointed by Dear Leader, clerked with a liberal Carter appointee.
We are rotting out from the inside, considering he is from Texas.
I’m not even Texan, but I know that if Texas falls, we all fall.
Yup
No overinflated ego there…Have you forgotten there are 49 other states? Believe it or not your train of thought is an insult to anyone who chooses to live somewhere other than TX and may have very good personal reasons for doing so. Stop being a clown…
Wha…?
Be more specific.
When he said “If Texas falls, we all fall,” he quite clearly meant in an electoral-college-of-gun-votes sort of way.
OMG, an openly gay judge? Shock, horror!
Better to be closeted like those heroes of our Constitution J. Edgar Hoover and Roy Cohn?
Worry about the ones that are concealing their sexual orientation than those that aren’t. Can’t play the blackmail card.
I’ll fix it for you: “Openly” gay means shove it everyone else’s face. Like gun control, socialism, #blacklivesmatter, “war on women.” and all that other BS. Basic Demo/Commie divide-and-conquer.
Gay is just gay. Couldn’t care less about that.
I know the original post was a little subtle. Kind of like “I’m a gun owner, but…”
>> I’ll fix it for you: “Openly” gay means shove it everyone else’s face.
So, like open carry then?
Not sure what’s “openly gay”. But if it’s behavior at a gay pride parade that’s prohibited on broadcast TV, then I’d agree with critics. I don’t find anything remotely prideful in seeing naked parade participants or simulated sex acts on floats in San Francisco’s parade.
Our LGBT-friendly shooting group has a free monthly orientation and shooting event – 5 signups so far for the next one. I suspect most of the ~250 members are straight, but tough to tell since no one is “openly gay”. No pink camo, sequined combat boots, or Village People lookalikes.
One guy told me it was a factor in getting his wife to try shooting; she’d resisted other offers. But a shooting group identified as LGBT-friendly seemed less intimidating. She tried it, was made to feel welcome, and now regularly shoots with her husband. He’s grateful because his wife no longer complains about new gun purchases: Happy wife = Happy life.
I thought is was the Judges job to explain why something should be outlawed, not our job to explain why it should be legal. We aren’t supposed to ask for permission to do something, they are supposed to make the case for why we shouldn’t or can’t. Did I miss something along the way?
So, let me get this straight: the right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected, but the right of the individual to manufacture his own firearm, for his own use, is not – and therefore the state can mandate that an individual may only acquire a firearm from a licensed manufacturer?
How utterly absurd. That’s analogous to saying that we have a right to acquire food, but we don’t have the right to hunt/farm for that food ourselves, and the state can mandate that we only acquire food from licensed grocers.
“That’s analogous to saying that we have a right to acquire food, but we don’t have the right to hunt/farm for that food ourselves…”
Don’t worry, they’re trying to make that illegal too.
It has happened before.
http://reason.com/archives/2014/09/25/food-freedom-and-the-225th-anniversary-o#.7xzpx2:4KWu
Wickard v Filburn
Exactly the case I was thinking of. Eerily similar.
Kamrade Roosevelt’s activities are not a particular good model.
Chip, you have nailed the critical distinction that we PotG need to be quite clear about.
– to make for your own personal use; vs.
– to manufacture for sale to others.
The headline of this article, its text, and most other commentary usually make the mistake (I argue) of using the term “manufacture” when referring to an amateur making his own gun. In so doing we – the PotG – conflate 2 distinct activities such that we make it easy for legislators and courts to apply “manufacturing” law to “amateur” activities.
Whether we like it or not, manufacturing and agriculture have long been held to be proper spheres of application of the “police power” of states; and, in our federal structure, the States. Interstate commerce is the sphere of the Federal government. It is unrealistic to imagine that the Feds will roll back regulation of manufacturers (i.e., for resale). It is unrealistic to imagine that the States will really stand behind manufacturers who refrain from distributing outside of their State boundaries. What IS realistic is to keep regulation of gun manufacturing within the relatively modest bounds it is held to at present.
Then, what we must do is keep the regulatory grasp of the Feds off our amateur activities. It’s important that we maintain a substantial capacity to make arms without resort to licensed manufacturers. In time of need, a tyrannical government could easily round-up all employees of licensed manufacturers. We must ensure that it would remain impractical to round-up amateur practitioners of the gunsmith craft.
>> Whether we like it or not, manufacturing and agriculture have long been held to be proper spheres of application of the “police power” of states;
Unfortunately, this also applies to personal use, based on an inane argument that a person producing a good for personal use affects the market demand for said good. That’s exactly why Wickard is relevant here. And this has been a precedent for many decades now, so “have long been held to be proper spheres” apply the same here.
Is it asking too much for Judges to have a reasonably strong grasp of the history of this country? Nearly everyone who visits this page could answer general questions about the basic manufacture of arms at the founding of this country and that without even consulting google/youtube/duckduckgo. Is he such a Luddite that he has never used youtube, or a search engine to gather information?
Pathetic that he claims to be an educated man.
Does the U.S. government issue patents on firearm designs? Does the U.S. government protect those patents?
Yeah, but it’s not like you can jump on Google Patent Search and pull up the full text of the patents for free……waitaminute…
Calling it now; this is where the demanding moms and CSGV are going topstarting next when the get bored of Amy Schumer.
So the worry is someone in some foreign shithole will download these, and print them on their fancy 3d printer, vs hammering out an AK from a shovel. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
It’s my opinion that there is no magic in these files, it’s all somethig that someone smart could recreate themselves.
They’ve basically said that they couldn’t find precedent or case law regarding manufacture, so we can’t allow those actions pending the case. However, the RKBA doesn’t exist necessarily because of the second amendment, but that right (and many others) are natural and self evident; the second amendment (and many other amendments in the bill of rights) spell it out. Indeed, the second amendment does not per se grant rights, but instead say those rights shall not be infringed. Therefore, the right to manufacture does not necessarily exist because of case law, but I submit exists because of natural law.
Activism in the Judiciary is despicable. They have one high level job…to be the guardians of the Constitution. When they cannot do that, they nullify their reason for their existence. We do not need a judge to repeat the orders of a corrupt, tyrannical government.
There’s no where to find that the first amendment specially protects the right to build a church or a printing press for that matter, but everyone would agree that being able to construct those items is part and parcel of exercising the freedom of religion and of the press, respectively…you cannot effectively exercize the one without out the other…
This is perfect.
Next he’ll be telling us our 3rd and 4th Amendment rights are waived unless we build our own house – which we won’t have a right to do.
At least with respect to the quoted portion, I think your conclusion is a bit too broad. The judge is saying that the core protections of the second amendment do not invalidate ITAR regulations. Agree or not, that is a separate issue than a blanket statement that individuals do not have the right to manufacture a firearm. That would be a radical re-interpretation under current law. If an individual does not have that right, then under what authority would a company be able to manufacture a weapon? This is an important point, since this position would imply that a company explicitly has a constitutional protection that does not extend to an individual. Certainly that would be a tough interpretation to justify, even in post-Citizens United. On the other hand, if a company cannot manufacture them (since a company’s rights don’t exceed those of an individual) then by definition you cannot acquire a firearm since neither you nor an organization are allowed to manufacture, and therefore you have directly infringed on the core protection of the second amendment. ITAR is a completely different issue, since it is intended to deal with international trade in arms, not domestic trade. I suspect the judge was simply imprecise in his language. Also keep in mind this was a request for a preliminary injunction, not a final decision.
The thing that bothers me about Wired (that horrible 80% video/”article” aside) is in this case they make it out that the plans are the gun.
If you really want a single shot gun, it can be manufactured out of a piece of pipe far cheaper than you can get a 3D printer, download the plans and print this thing out. It’s not that hard either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q18BKcdy7Rk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlwyo2xwZds
It’s not like this is something new or revolutionary by any means. Unless you need hundreds of these for some reason (arming your gang?) the break even point is garbage. Even compared to just buying say an 80% lower it’s not that great.
Eh, it’s only a district court. As important as they are, the law will not be defined at their level.
Judge needs to be removed.
He is what I like to call “The Human Pretzel”(tm) – both feet in his mouth, and his head up his ass.
?? Non sequitur.
How can you have the right to keep and bear arms but not the right to bring arms into existence? If we were to ban all production and importation of all arms in this country, after everyone’s arms are worn out and discarded, nobody would be able to have any arms. Looks like backdoor gun control/ 2A infringement to me. And once again these people (people with character of low quality) don’t want to call it what it is, they want to disguise it as what they want it to be.
The 9th does that. The 9th and 10th are what prevent direct attacks on rights like this, the 2nd, 1st, 3d, 4th, etc… prevent indirect or inadvertent attacks. Banning or hindering manufacturing infringes on ownership by interfering with the market.
How is this not like saying that we have the right to vote, but that doesn’t mean there’s a right to get to or into the voting station?
Or that we have a right to freedom of religion, but not a right to have church buildings?
Or that we have freedom of the press, but not a right to make printing presses?
This judge needs . . . well, my mom taught me to not be THAT rude.
I read it as being similar to the Miller decision from the 1930s.
If the litigant didn’t provide any evidence, then ‘there is no evidence before this court to support the notion that rights under the 2A include xxx’.
In Miller, neither Miller nor his former attorney ever put in an appearance. So SCOTUS found that, unless there is any evidence that short barreled shotguns were useful to the militia, it’s not necessarily unconstitutional to put a $200 tax on a SBS.
In the case at hand, the judge is saying that Defense Distributed’s theory is appealing, but DD didn’t offer any evidence to support the argument yet.
And that’s entirely upside-down logic.
Rights are not derived from men wearing black robes. Rights are natural, and endowed by our Creator (as stated in the Declaration of Independence). The constitution constrains the government, at all levels, from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, it is not the burden of the people to show where a man in a black robe has opined that an element of that right exists; rather, it is the burden of the state to show that an action of the state does not violate the constitutional prohibition against infringement of a pre-existing right.
Acting properly and within his constitutionally derived authority, the judge should have burdened the state with providing evidence that banning the individual manufacture of firearms for individual use does not violate the constitutional prohibition against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
Exactly!
+1000
And once again, we see the danger of relying on liberal arts majors with law graduate degrees as a source of knowledge in anything other than putting words on paper.
Yes, with the skills of a blacksmith, you can make a working gun. Add in the skills of a gunsmith, and you can make a working gun that is pretty and accurate.
I have been, bit by very slow bit, building my own smooth bore flintlock for a couple of years now. The Pennsylvania smiths who developed these guns documented their craft, and disseminated it, more than 200 years ago, both before and after the American Revolution. They not only made, and showed people how to make these guns, but shipped and sold them outside of the United States, as it was at the time. Not only that, but they even sold these home made guns to Native Americans, as well as French and Dutch traders. Were these smith’s, so freshly familiar with the Bill of Rights, breaking the law?
We already know the evil guv’s opinion and position. This is a silly waste of time, at best. You’re not going to get an enemy with this much power and position to just suddenly give up. We have the technology to simply defy them. Mass defiance == mass nullification. Are the drug-addled liberals really smarter than gun owners? Guns are easier to make than most illegal drugs. Drugs proliferate as the guv uses it’s impotent contraband laws to incite violence, just like the original prohibition… You can’t figure this out?
This fight will not be won in a corrupt legal system already bent to the will of socialist statism. That’s a waste of time. You’re trying to fight on ground you’ve already lost. You can’t bend this corruption. All you can do is defy it. Learn how. Make the law impotent with mass defiance. Guns are easier to make than growing weed. There’s no excuse for NOT having them just as everywhere as weed, using 100 year old technology. We don’t need the Internet and 3D printers to get there.
“While the founding fathers did not have access to such technology, Plaintiffs maintain the ability to manufacture guns falls within the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.”
The Founders also didn’t have access to electronic transmission technology so going by this moron’s logic the 1st Amendment’s protections shouldn’t apply to radio, television, or internet communication.
As 3d printing, CNC routing and base materials becomes more prevalent and cheaper over time, gun designs will pop up in the public domain. I’m sure all manners of nonsensical burdens will be placed on 3d printer makers (to prevent helping “the terrorists” build guns….), but as costs drop and familiarity rises, it will become obvious that a gun is just too simple a device. Like banning the manufacture of a knife already is.
Whats the length of a patent, 15-20 years? Think about all the viable weapon designs that make eligible as public domain already kalishnikovs, FN FALs, AR-10, 15s…
What’s more, 3d printing, and other point-of-use manufacturing techniques, will finally put a crimp on the oppressive patent regime we’ve been living under for several decades, now. With manufacturing being dispersed, there is noone for the oppressors to “crack down” on. And the files themselves are freely copyable and encryptable.
at this point in time, there are so many laws that state ‘you can’t do this’ or ‘ you can’t do that’ that no one can possibly keep track of them. the reality is that all of these ‘illegal’ activities are unenforceable in a broad sense. the fact of the matter is that those that govern, and the government have fallen into realm of the absurd.
carry on as before.
The Defense Distributed files, plus the FOSSCAD mega-packs, can be downloaded at The Pirate Bay. You didn’t hear it from me, though, and don’t ask me how I know this.,, 😉
Yes, you have freedom of speech.
However, the first amendment does not provide for your ability to make up new words. The logic to do so is compelling, but there is no recorded case-law to support such an argument. There is after all a sufficient dictionary from which one can obtain words for your use…
Save that the available lexicon falls short in detailing what hypocrisy is present in a “judge” that would advance such a position on the second amendment but not on the first.
Indeed, I know of no law that provides for me the right to clean a weapon in my home, nor would allow for me to make repairs on one. With clearly the need for public safety being paramount – why should I be allowed to handle a gun the state cannot be sure is clean and in good repair. Surely – legally – logically – it would be best if after each and every single discharge a gun owner would be required to take said gun to a federally approved gunsmith to insure it is safe to fire another round.
I take solace in my advancing years that eventually I will not be judged able to wipe myself and a democrat will be appointed to do it for me. I remain concerned however that it would become to expensive to have it done, require stacks of paper (stiff – not soft) to accomplish, be done poorly, and I would be at ever increasing risk to be literally buggered in the process.
Perhaps that thought returns us to the above comments on the honorable judges sexuality.
Looks like they’re at the four Seasons in Austin.
You only have the Right To Keep and Bear Arms if you can buy them someplace.
As soon as the courts can prevent manufacturers from making them, you no longer have the Right To Keep and Bear Arms, and you will be compelled to kill those making such rulings, kill their kids, burn their sh_t, etc.
Decide now b_tches.
It’s a preliminary injunction. Don’t get your knickers in a twist, denying it is likely, given that the law has been in effect for years (so the injunction would change the status quo), and they were unable to show irreparable harm. I don’t think any rants the judge puts in the denial of the injunction have any legal weight at all.
And the supreme court turns down more than 98% of the cases that are appealed to it, so that they turn down what ever pet issue you have (and I have plenty) means nothing.
Comments are closed.