3d printed guns ivan
3D printed guns courtesy Ivan the Troll

What a long strange trip it’s been. And it still isn’t over. Long ago, in a world that now seems far, far away, 22 state attorneys general plus the AG from the District of Columbia sued the Department of State under President Trump. These Democrat AGs had their legal knickers in a twist over the dissemination of electronic files for 3D gun parts.

Back in 2013 under the Obama administration, the State Department banned Defense Distributed from sharing 3D gun design files as alleged violations of ITAR, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Defense Distributed sued State, claiming the move infringed on its First Amendment rights. Code is free speech and all that.

Under the Trump administration, the State Department moved to settle the matter and allow Defense Distributed to share 3D gun files as they wanted. That was almost complete when the 22+1 AGs rode in and filed for an injunction to stop the settlement agreement, apparently thinking their action would somehow halt the distribution of electronic plans for gun parts on the information superhighway.

Bless their little hearts. With 3D gun files widely available all across Al Gore’s greatest invention, the anti-gun AGs’ ludicrous case is virtually moot. You might even say that they can’t stop the signal.

3d printed gun guns files
Courtesy 3dprintingindustry.com

Anyway, a lower court initially granted the AGs’ motion and issued the injunction, but today a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the injunction and instructed the lower court to dismiss the case.

Despite the fact that there are literally thousands of 3D files available out there for you to download right now with just a few clicks, the AGs will probably appeal the panel’s decision and ask the Ninth for an en banc review anyway. Because guns.

Here are a couple of Rob Romano’s tweets with some of the relevant information from the ruling.

 

23 COMMENTS

  1. Don’t even understand why there are any “lower courts” in Californication. Every appeal moves to the en banc 9th.

    • You nailed it.

      That’s what Sacramento does. Everything is appealed ad nauseum. I mean, look at our current Duncan v. Becerra regarding magazines. Ruled unconstitutional in 2017, appealed. The Ninth actually ruled it unconstitutional in 2018, appealed. Went back to the original judge who ruled again that it’s unconstitutional in 2019, appealed. Now it’s in limbo waiting for an en banc with the Ninth. Yes, that same Ninth that recently said the 2A doesn’t actually mean what it says and we don’t have any right to carry.

    • Doesn’t need to be reviewed further. Note the timing relative to Biden’s directive to review unserialized firearm regulation.

      The Bolshevikocrats don’t actually need to prevent you or I from making unserialized firearms. They know that won’t change anything one way or another. They just need to have a list of crimes of sufficient length that enough of us have broken so that, should anyone of us become inconvenient, they have the coordinates with which the hammer can drop to their will and eliminate their inconvenience.

      Biden mooted this issue, so the 9th dutifully closed it.

    • “Don’t even understand why there are any “lower courts” in Californication.”

      It’s part of the progressive/liberal “Jobs Program”. Creating something to do for a pile of bottomfeeders who might not even pass the Bar Exam and who don’t want to chase ambulances and work the class-action circuit.

      The Bard had it worded correctly in Henry VI “…first, we kill all the lawyers”. That would take care of most of the judges and politicians as well.

        • “Always enjoyed Shakespeare’s plays.”

          “‘Till the hurly-burlys done, ’till the battle’s lost and won…”

        • jay tiller singing for couch flambeau, “i hate reading shakespeare, i wish he were dead. oh, he is? good…”

  2. Leftist AGs in blue states are all hoping for some of that Soros money for their next reelection.

  3. More examples of lawmakers not understanding what they are trying to regulate. You can stop information on the internet as easily as stopping the tides.

  4. “the AGs will probably appeal the panel’s decision and ask the Ninth for an en banc review anyway.”

    Of course they will. And the trained monkeys in black robes will do what they always do.

  5. Interesting. The law provides that the rules of the DOJ and DOC are not reviewable by the courts….That pretty much says it all. I wonder how the en banc panel will get around that? I mean, I am sure they will, they got around the Second Amendment after all…

  6. Simple process.
    !. Sign up with a VPN service.
    2. When you go online always make a DNS check website your first stop. It will test and report on your connection, if it is anonymous or not.
    3. Go to whatever sites you like and download whatever is freely available and does not demand your identifying info from you.

    Important Safety Tip:

    I’ll likely never own a 3D printer, just not my interest. But I’ve a large collection of evil ghost gunny files. So far, none of those files have leapt up off my hard drive and attempted to do me or mine any harm. And while I favor Free Speech of course, I’ve gone ahead and built a sandbag wall around the computer just in case those Ghost Gun files attempt to get me.

    I figure as Ghost Gun Files lack arms, legs, feet, hands or opposable thumbs, there’s no way them evil plastic goo emitter files will be able to climb up over 8 feet of sandbags to attack me.

    Does kinda’ reduce floorspace in the room though………

    • “Sign up with a VPN service.”

      *Fail*.

      The use of a telecommunications device to facilitate a criminal act is a felony crime in most areas…

  7. You are right–everyone should be using a quality (i.e. not free) VPN these days. You are at risk if you aren’t.

  8. Whatever the Ninth Circuit dissenting judge is smoking, it’s damn rude he isn’t sharing . . . .

    As pointed out in the Fifth Circuit dissent (to the denial of en banc review of the Defense Distributed appeal, which was on the incredibly narrow grounds applicable to a denial of a preliminary injunction), on the merits of that case the government was doomed . . . There was no way the proposed reg survived strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. *That’s* why the government settled that case.

    Pro tip: that DD didn’t include the usual language in the order reserving the trial court’s jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement with Uncle Sam was an unfortunate error that opened to door to this. Then again, so was NYSR&PA not having a claim for nominal damages to preclude a mootness challenge. Hey, it happens.

    With respect to Ralph, I suspect CTA9 won’t take this one en banc … too many unintended consequences a reversal would raise WRT executive power, plus SCOTUS may be about to whack them on 2A stuff.

  9. “jay tiller singing for couch flambeau, “i hate reading shakespeare, i wish he were dead. oh, he is? good…”

    Funny.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here