The Judge in the Latest 3D-Printed Gun Case Got 3D Printing Totally Wrong

No. Really? . . .

The law that supposedly prohibits the posting of the schematic is an export control law, the Arms Export Control Act, so nothing stops Wilson from distributing the schematic inside the United States. But posting the gun schematic online necessarily exposes it to foreign countries, according to the court, because “the internet is both domestic and international.”

Yet anyone who has used the internet in the last decade knows that it is not so international today. Streaming video sites regularly have different offerings per country. Corporate websitesoften redirect users to different sites based on location. Indeed, there are freely available code snippets for blocking users by country. Certainly skilled users can get around location-based blocking, but they are at least at the skill level of BitTorrent-cybernauts who could also find the schematics elsewhere.

Perhaps the judge can’t be faulted for that error—none of the lawyers appear to have proposed country-based blocking—but one would expect the court to know how harmful 3D-printed guns actually are, in a case about the harm of 3D-printed guns. That does not appear to be the case. The judge assumes that once the schematic is out, plastic guns will show up everywhere due to the “portability and ease of a manufacturing process”—that is, 3D printing—“that can be set up virtually anywhere.”

New York Dem Flip Flops on Support for National Gun Registry After Primary Win

So she was before it before she was against it . . .

The Democratic candidate for New York’s 23rd Congressional District admitted to dropping her support of a national gun registry at a campaign event in Seneca County earlier this month.

Tracy Mitrano, who is running against Republican congressman Tom Reed, said she had supported the registration of all guns and licensing of gun users during her primary campaign but claimed it was not her official position during a voter forum on Aug. 18 in Waterloo, N.Y. She blamed her inexperience at speaking on camera for the discrepancy and claimed she had only made comments supporting a national gun registry at one event.

“It is true that in Seneca Falls last spring I said in an emphatic moment we must register all guns and license all gun users,” Mitrano told attendees at Seneca County SCOPE‘s “Meet the Candidates” event, video excerpts posted on YouTube show. “I walked away and went, ‘Oh my God, Tracy. What did you just do?’ That is not my official position but because Mr. Weinstein records everything that I say, I would be a fool to deny it. But that is not my position. And, honestly, if you had to be held to every single thing you ever said in your life because you’re not accustomed to being filmed every time you step out into public I think you should allow for consideration and thought about it.”

New CPRC Research: How a Botched Study Fooled the World About the U.S. Share of Mass Public Shootings: U.S. Rate is Lower than Global Average

This is probably just a simple oversight [*cough* Michael Bellesiles *cough*]. . .

Even when we use coding choices that are most charitable to Lankford, his 31 percent estimate of the US’s share of world mass public shooters is cut by over 95 percent.  By our count, the US makes up less than 1.43% of the mass public shooters, 2.11% of their murders, and 2.88% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average.

Given the massive U.S. and international media attention Lankford’s work has received, and given the considerable impact his research has had on the debate, it is critical that this issue be resolved. His unwillingness to provide even the most basic information to other researchers raises real concerns about Lankford’s motives.

“Because of faulty research, it is widely believed that a disproportionate share – 31% – of the world’s mass public shooters occurred in the United States,” said Professor Paul Rubin, Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Economics, Emory University.  “In fact, John Lott’s careful analysis of a very large data set – 437 – pages – shows that the proper number is about 2%, less than the U.S. share of world population.  One can only hope that this important research will correct the record.”

How Louisiana Stood Up to the Anti-Gun Corporate Elite

They refused to do business with them. That’s a pretty good start . . .

The clear disconnect between the banks’ policies and their likely effects shows exactly how little these companies care for our Second Amendment rights. Such casual dismissal of our cherished rights and values should not be minimized or dismissed.

Recently, the people of my state directly and overwhelmingly approved the strongest possible constitutional protection of our gun rights. The constitutional amendment states that “the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and any restriction of that right requires the highest standard of review by a court.”

I intend to continue upholding that duty and fighting boardroom elitists who seek to use their power to undermine our constitutional rights.

I have not and will not allow their public virtue signaling to even nominally affect the ability of Louisiana citizens to enjoy their Second Amendment rights. I am proud of our majority on the Louisiana Bond Commission who saw these policies for what they are.

The Most Common Firearm in America is Not a ‘Weapon of War’

We’re well aware, but it’s good to hear others point it out, too . . .

A Massachusetts statute prohibits ownership of “assault weapons,” the statutory definition of which includes the most popular semi-automatic rifles in the country, as well as “copies or duplicates” of any such weapons. As for what that means, your guess is as good as ours. A group of plaintiffs, including two firearm dealers and the Gun Owners’ Action League challenged the law as a violation of the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, federal district court judge William Young upheld the ban.

Judge Young followed the lead of the Fourth Circuit case of Kolbe v. Hogan (in which Cato filed a brief supporting a petition to the Supreme Court) which misconstrued from a shred of the landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case that the test for whether a class of weapons could be banned was whether it was “like an M-16,” contravening the core of Heller—that all weapons in common civilian use are constitutionally protected. What’s worse is that Judge Young seemed to go a step further, rejecting the argument that an “M-16” is a machine gun, unlike the weapons banned by Massachusetts, and deciding that semi-automatics are “almost identical to the M16, except for the mode of firing.” (The mode of firing is, of course, the principle distinction between automatic and semi-automatic firearms.)