Copyright Law Could Stop 3-D Printed Guns. Should It?
The latest strategy to stop the signal: seize 3D gun file copyrights using eminent domain . . .
Like a computer program, the plastic gun schematic is a document file. As such, it automatically receives a copyright owned by the creator of the schematic, namely Wilson. Accordingly, under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the federal, state, or local government could exercise eminent domain to take ownership of the copyright. Indeed, a fair number of legal scholars believe that copyrights are subject to the Takings Clause, and the Supreme Court has suggested a number of times that the clause applies to intellectual property. For example, in Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto, the court held that it applied to trade secrets; themselves a form of intellectual property.
To exercise eminent domain, a process known as condemnation, the government would first need to identify a relevant statute broad enough to authorize the taking (such as California’s statute, once deemed broad enough to authorize Oakland to condemn a football franchise). It would then file a lawsuit asking a court to condemn the copyright and thus transfer title to the government. An eminent domain action is necessary here because the government needs to fully divest Wilson of his copyright; a “regulatory taking” where the government only restricts the manner of use of the copyright would not suffice.
What if guns were regulated like cars? To increase child safety, AAP president calls for public health approach
Yeah, this again . . .
What if, she asked, “guns were regulated like cars?”
Speaking before doctors, nurses and students, Kraft proposed the idea of taking a public health approach to “keeping kids safe when it comes to gun violence.”
What if the law mandated that gun ownership require licensing, liability insurance, health requirements and inspections at regular intervals, she asked.
Once officials began looking at car ownership and driving rights as a data-driven public health and safety issue, she said, the result was seatbelt laws, federal safety standards, speed limits and the introduction of child safety seats. And the result of those things has been a significant drop in automobile-related deaths, she said.
Hedge Fund Billionaire Takes On The Strangely Thorny Issue Of Gun Data
This should be good . . .
The ripple effect of the Parkland shooting and students’ activism continues to roll across the policy landscape. One small, but potentially significant initiative: The Laura and John Arnold Foundation is piecing together a coalition of private funders to devote $50 million to research on gun violence as a public safety issue. To oversee the project, the foundation picked the RAND Foundation, which has its own Gun Policy in America initiative.
John Arnold is a former energy trader who worked at Enron and later founded his own firm. His fortune is estimated at $3.3 billion. After he retired at 38, he and his wife have made science one of their primary causes.
The Foundation hopes to work across political divides to produce a body of evidence that both sides will trust. “We are about evidence, where the truth takes us,” said Jeremy Travis, senior vice president of Criminal Justice. “We’re not on one side or another of the gun debates that are really dividing the country. We are interested in testing ideas and finding out what works.”
WATCH: MLB Star Stands Ground As Reporters Hound Him Over Pro-Gun Post: My Family Fled Castro
“As most of you guys know I’m Cuban-American, and most of my family was run out of Cuba because of a brutal dictator,” Martinez told a swarm of reporters on Tuesday. “It’s terrible. It’s one of those things where I’ll never get to meet some of my family because of it.”
“I love my country. I stand by the Constitution and I stand by the Second Amendment,” he continued. “It’s something I take pride in and it’s something I’ll back up.”
“Everybody has a right to stand by what they believe in and that’s what makes us American,” added Martinez, according to the New York Daily News. “We’re not all going to believe in the same things, but that’s what makes this country so great.”
3 students in custody, 1 hurt after police find gun on SF campus
Isn’t that illegal? . . .
A 14-year-old freshman accused of bringing a gun to Balboa High School ran away after the gun accidentally discharged in a classroom, according to a source.
The student brought the gun to school in his backpack. No students were injured by gunfire, though one girl hurt her back, according to officials.
The student who brought the gun to school turned himself in at the Bayview Police Station Thursday afternoon. His mother took him to the station, which is near his home.
For once, a ND in a school that had nothing to do with a school resource officer.
“For once, a ND in a school that had nothing to do with a school resource officer.”
Huh? The article said is was the resource officer who pulled the trigger and fired the shot!
The bullet struck a teacher in class full of kids in the neck but didn’t break her skin.
Why? Because the bullet was a suck-ass .380 that passed through a wall…
Fedup was giving examples of the numerous times(almost EVERY time, really) that school NDs are perpetrated by school officials themselves. This ONE incident in SF was not. This one was a student. Well, perhaps 3 students, depending upon how it all washes out. At this point no allegations that any school official was involved in the discharge, other than the teacher that reported the shot.
And even at that it could be lots worse. Resource officers COULD BE as bad as a typical federal agent.
“What if guns were regulated like cars? To increase child safety, AAP president calls for public health approach”
Driving a vehicle is a privilege,the 2 nd. Amendment is a natural civil right,go back to the drawing board honey,do not pass go.
This has been brought up before:
1) mufflers (silencers) on every gun
2) no limit to how fast you can shoot/drive: full auto
3) no limit on size of vehicle: can have short barrel rifles/shotguns
4) anyone can build their own
5) can send receive in the mail without needing a license
You forgot that you could buy it in any state, and carry it LEGALLY in any state with just your home state registration
You could buy one on the Internet and have it delivered to your door.
And there is no license, insurance or anything required or mandated to operate on private property.
Boom! Mic drop. Suck it bitch!
I get so tired of that stupid argument.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but at least in my own jurisdiction, I don’t know of any law that requires licensing, background checks, etc., to *buy* a motor vehicle. Operate one on public property? Sure. But if I my neighbor has a car for sale in his driveway, all I have to do is pay the fee to transfer the title, and that’s it to buy it.
Once I meet all those demands, I can drive my car anywhere I want, right? So, if we do that for guns, I’d be able to shoot anybody I want, as often as I want? I’ve *got* a license!
“…. the result was seatbelt laws, federal safety standards, speed limits and the introduction of child safety seats. And the result of those things has been a significant drop in automobile-related deaths, she said.”
If only murder and aggravated assault with a firearm were illegal, then all these shootings would go down…. **sigh** …. sadly, unless we regulate firearms we won’t be able to pass those laws. /sarc/
“What if cars were regulated like guns?”
Put them in our shoes and see how they change their songs.
OOOooo! Automatics need ATF approval, 1 year wait and extra $$, right?
Glad that baseball player stood his ground to those scumbag reporters and refused to take the post down. Glad to see people with convictions that stand by them.
I wonder how many of the Hispanic progressives taking over the Miami area are of Mexican/Honduran/Guatemalan descent and how many are the descendants of commie hating Cubans.
Martinez is sticking to his anti-commie heritage. And he connects it directly to the 2A. The next time a Che Guevara starts murdering people, I expect Martinez will be ready for it.
Democrats have loooong taken the latino/hispanic vote for granted and assumed that all brown people are the same.
cuban refugees don’t like totalitarian socialist governments. legal immigrants and people who have lived here for generations don’t often support illegal immigration. That’s why democrats are always pushing for giving illegals support – get the support of the illegals, get the support of their kids. You might have to fight for their grandkids’ votes, but just import more illegals to offset that.
Florida’s vote for trump took “everybody” by surprise – everybody except people who understand what I just said…
What if voting was regulated like driving? Betcha a lot fewer demokkkrats would get elected.
“What if voting was regulated like…” guns?
How many Dems would be denied due to failed background check or paperwork?
Or a sheriff refused to sign off!
For those who still believe in absolute rights (talking effective, not theoretical), the first article in this digest is well worth the reading. Regardless of one’s stance about a rogue justice system, such system does exist, and “rights” are twisted all out of shape. Like it or not, it is “the system”. The history of First Amendment twists does not bode well for maintaining even what we have for Second Amendment protections.
So say Kalifornika decided to do that. What’s to stop Montana or Texas from filing a counterclaim to claim the rights and release them back to Cody? Would make an interesting thing for the courts to solve.
Or if a Stare seized it and offered it to the public as being in the “public interest”.
If the progs “read” the 2nd like they do the 1st, every American would be required to carry an AR 24/7.
You mean to say Progtards can read,I wonder what it is of the line “Shall Not Be Infringed” it is they fail to comprehend.
“I wonder what it is of the line “Shall Not Be Infringed” it is they fail to comprehend”
The progs don’t fail to comprehend anything. We have all that “Congress shall make no law…” crapola in the First Amendment, and look what happened to that (well, with assist from the courts) – copyright laws in the constitution somehow override the free speech amendment that came later, and supersedes the original text !
It’s a challenge to their ability to make themselves more important than others.
It would be stupid if they tried. Cody made the files to be a test case for the courts, not to make money. If the copyright were ever threatened, he could release them into the public domain without a copyright. As “code” he could give it an open source license that allows derivative products. Essentially, they have no chance at succeeding. It’s kind of Coyote and Road Runner, and the anti-gunners are the Coyote.
Government doing stupid stuff has never been a deterrent to government doing stupid stuff. We risk much by clinging to a concept that something we disapprove, or something we think unfair, or something we think being “right” about will make a difference in government action.
Not being a copyright or patent attorney, I cannot list all the ways government can attack freedoms. The linked article on courts circumventing the First Amendment is instructive. It takes little real imagination to extrapolate one or two lines of attack regarding the plans for invisible guns. Government needs only succeed once. We must successfully defend everywhere, all the time.
Remember “right does not make might”. We ignore assaults on the constitution at our own peril.
Gee I got a driver’s liscense at 16 and my 1st car at 18. Pretty dang simple(and cheap!) in the early 70’s too. My 1st car was a 1962 Galaxie 500 390 engine with Thrush mufflers.Paid $140 for it! I drove 120mph in it too(yeah I wrecked it😢). Now in 2018 I have to go through all kinds of BS to own and carry a gun(in ILLinois). And now I’m a fan of a NY baseball player😄
And now you have a FOID and a driver license, my aren’t you fortunate….?
JD Martinez actually plays for my beloved Red Sox. My new favorite player!
My first real car at 16 was a 1966 Chrysler Newport with a 318. You got me by a bunch there. But here in the Montana hinterlands we drive way before we get a license. I learned to drive in a 1959 Chevy Impala with a straight 6 and a three on the tree. Your 390 makes that one look like a pedal car. But it was still a hell of a lot better than nothing. But I mostly preferred my Honda trail 90, at least if it wasn’t raining.
No city dweller can understand how great it is to be 10 years old and have a saddle(or a ’59 chevy) to roam the prairie in…
I love the car vs gun ownership argument. What the left doesn’t realize is that a drivers license, insurance and safety or smog inspections only apply if the vehicle owner is using the vehicle on a public street. I also don’t need a license to buy a vehicle, any vehicle I want is open for purchase. No permission needed. Ask the folks that use their vehicles at track days, nothing is stock, just a safety check.
Don’t be diverted by the rights/privileges words. It is the subjugation of the Second Amendment to copy right laws that is the real threat.
Indeed even if you ignore THAT, there are still very few FEDERAL laws on cars, almost all driving laws are state level or lower. South Dakota allows a license at 14 and a half years old, and most states allow a learners permit at 14 or 15. I really doubt anyone making this argument would be OK with 14 year olds being able to buy guns from a dealer.
There are extensive federal laws on cars sold new.
Emission standards, mileage standards (CAFE), crash worthiness, seat belts, taillights, etc…
How much of that is the law, and how much is just regulation?
hr2675 act of 2015
“(A) LOW VOLUME MANUFACTURER.—The term ‘low volume manufacturer’ means a motor vehicle manufacturer, other than a person who is registered as an importer under section 30141 of this title, whose annual worldwide production is not more than 5,000 motor vehicles.”
no need to comply wit bupkis.
Yeah I bought my first car at 16; Private sale… no background check. Was in 4-6 minor fender benders before turning 18. (I was a bad inattentive driver before about 20).
I have no problem with 14 year olds buying firearms. Why do you?
The Ninth Circuit needs to be cleansed of any liberal judges now! They have now claimed the rights to impose legislation upon the public of their interpretation of what they THINK THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS WERE SUPPOSED TO MEAN according to their idiotology!
“Isn’t that illegal? . . .”
“A 14-year-old freshman”
Nation wide thanks to the NRA.
Are you saying the NRA supported the 1990 Gun Free School Zone Act? Or do you mean the 1969 GCA that prevented FFL sales to minor, but not possession, gifting, or private party sales (so possession by a 14 year old isn’t a violation of federal law)? You seem to have NRA Derangement Syndrome — everything is their fault in your eyes.
As for eminent domain to stop Cody Wilson, even if we pretend all their arguments were valid (yes, that takes quite a bit of imagination), there’s still the problem of “just compensation”. Given Mr. Wilson’s invention is talked about daily and famous worldwide the compensation for it would be huge. While this may not be huge in the scale of the Federal budget, that still requires the House approve budget specifically for it and at that point you have the same requirements as a law.
Then, even if all the above goes smoothly nothing stops anyone, even Cody Wilson, from just making a new 3D printed design from scratch. Only potential snag is calling if one could call it “Liberator”, but then all one needs to do is call it “deer gun”, “FP-46” or whatever, plus from what I know Cody Wilson only holds copyright, not trademark .
Most challengers of “just compensation” seem to lose, with the government agent dictating the amount (without real recourse). Once eminent domain action has started, you WILL lose your property. There is no “fair price” mechanism that favors the victim. Government’s estimate of value is always valid, the victim’s value is considered emotional, unreasonable and unrealistic.
ONE MORE THING!
Even once the Government owns the copyright, there’s the tiny problem that the RIAA, MPAA, ESA and many, many others (who have the advantage of not having the material on the internet BEFORE they got copyright) have been trying for decades to stop piracy. Not only have they utterly failed at it the RIAA and MPAA have utterly destroyed public sympathy for themselves by trying while blowing enough money on it instead of research that they have become irrelevant to the industry. Also, you know, all the people OUTSIDE the US sharing it.
How did the guy behind this idea pass the bar?
“How did the guy behind this idea pass the bar?”
Are you asking about the author of the article pointing out the dangers, or talking about the lawyers who figured out how to subvert the First Amendment?
Disregarding past history of minimal ‘just compensation’, I would think compensation for something released to the public, without charge, would negate any chance of profitable compensation.
If potential sale price were the only thing that required compensation perhaps. The marketing value for Cody Wilson/Defense Distributed is much higher.
I was going to suggest how Google would fight if the government tried to take Android from them with minimal compensation, but it made me realize an even bigger snag: If eminent domain was imminent, Cody Wilson could simply relicense the code as a non-revokable free license: Sure the government owns the rights, but the actual product is under free license and they can’t do jack about that.
I wonder if they have any idea how many bootleg copies can be made while they go through the courts to condemn intellectual property so as to seize it under eminent domain?
I was thinking the same: how do you divest someone of electronic media?
You “divest” someone of electronic media by making possession illegal, then tracking all the downloads. Sorta like, uuuhhhmmm, tracking down software and music pirates (which is not fantastical).
The Genie’s out of the bottle. Making it illegal will do nothing, files will be shared among friends, the signal will continue unabated.
“I wonder if they have any idea how many bootleg copies can be made while they go through the courts to condemn intellectual property so as to seize it under eminent domain?”
Think about it for a minute….
Once the courts rule that documents regarding invisible, deadly, untraceable guns present a compelling interest in public safety, either the courts, or legislatures will make mere possession of the files illegal. Then come the subpoenas to ISPs to reveal the IP addresses of whomever downloaded from Cody (there may even be a way to find the files downloaded from alternate sites).
Sometimes the government acts stupidly, but never, never underestimate their ability to be cunning, conniving, sneaky, deceptive, or vicious against the public By the time we can think of all the ways government can harm us, it has already advanced to new treachery; action beats reaction.
“never underestimate [the government’s] ability to be cunning, conniving, sneaky, deceptive, or vicious against the public”
I don’t think that government has the ability to be anything other than cunning, conniving, sneaky, deceptive, or vicious against the public. Oppression by force is the very heart and soul of government.
Government is a dangerous servant and a fierce master.
“To increase child safety, AAP president calls for public health approach
Yeah, this again . . .”
When progress in “public health” is driven by innovations in technology and application, over the friction of “public health” policy & programs perhaps the health-overlords shouldn’t use that as an example?
Show me the result that came from “public health” administration and policy post sanitation, vaccination, and dietary deficiency diseases? Zitka? That lovely flue season last winter?
You wanna save lives? Keep a “public health” approach away from public and personal safety.
Ever time some burrocrat wants to destroy someone or thing, or steal their stuff, the most popular excuse is “for your own good”.
“we had to destroy the village in order to save it”
I hope all normal, America loving citizens realize and take note at what is occuring the US. Currently, we are facing an escalating “War of Leftist Aggression”, which must be confronted and defeated. Make no mistake, we will DEFEND ourselves against the machinations of these filthy, subhuman, Liberal Terrorists™️. These bonafide domestic enemies pose an existential threat to our Constitutional Republic. We MUST adopt the inspirational slogan that can be viewed as a road map for national victory, “Aim to be leftist free by 2020”. I suggest seizing democrat voting registrations and voting records, along with the website servers of such leftist sewers like the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post, etc, so as to reveal who America’s real enemies are.
An eminent domain strategy runs into immediate trouble if it can be shown to be a pretextual excuse to prohibit someone from practicing their 1st amendment rights. The gun-controllers complaint that some kind of improper someone might use the pdf files to CNC themselves a machine gun seems to me to be a pretty nebulous excuse to take away someone’s constitutional right. Cody’s essential argument, which trumps the gun-control complaint, is that one of the social costs of living in a free society is the possibility that someone might ignore are the boundries and do something bad. We have laws against that of course which is Cody’s whole point. Prohibiting freedom of speech or any other constitutionally protected right on the grounds that it might contribute to someone doing something bad is a very slippery slope that leads to a totalitarian police state. The old Soviet Union reportedly had very safe streets but nobody in their right mind, expect maybe gun-control activists, would want to live in a place like that. Simply put: freedom ain’t for free. Keeping and practicing it comes with risks.
Eminent Domain would work if there was a physical copyright to be seized.
The files for 3D printed files have been reproduced by samizdat so much there is no way to round up all copies.
“An eminent domain strategy runs into immediate trouble if it can be shown to be a pretextual excuse to prohibit someone from practicing their 1st amendment rights.”
So, how did the courts conclude that Second Amendment rights can be constrained in furtherance of public safety? “The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Monday upheld a ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” in Highland Park, Illinois, ruling that the prohibition on these widely popular and commonly owned firearms and accessories is constitutional.”
An honest judge (hah!) will tell you that the law is what he says it is. Nothing more and nothing less.
Amazing how the people who supported gay marriage, legalization of pot, open borders, and the welfare industrial complex.
None of them support private property rights. Or the second amendment. Nor the rest of the Bill of Rights.
There’s plenty of people (like me) who support gay marriage and pot legalization, as well as strengthening property rights, an absolutist view of RKBA and all the other rights that we hold dear.
We call ourselves “Libertarians”, and despite what you might read on TTAG, we don’t actually eat children and kick puppies. I can’t speak for all of them, of course, but the ones I know usually vote for liberties over statism, and these days that means a lot of (R) on my ballot.
A-ring-a-ling-a-ding, shakin’ is the greatest thing!
“I hit so hard I heard bell’s ring, but held on to my ding-a-ling…”
“…What if the law mandated that gun ownership require licensing, liability insurance, health requirements and inspections at regular intervals, she asked.”
It all sounds so innocent until you give it more than a passing thought….
Licensing? meh. we have that already in a lot places but still people get hurt so the question remains about effectiveness.
Liability insurance? Not an option. Insurance can’t pay out for criminal acts. So requiring an insurance that is not available to own firearms is just as useless as California’s microstamping law.
Health requirements? How fantastically vague! Here, lets just lift up this corner of the tent for the camel.
Inspections at regular intervals. Surely she means something as benign as getting your license renewed every few years. She looks like a sweet lady so there isn’t any possible way she is suggesting we violate even more of our rights and allow Law Enforcement into our home to inspect whatever it is they are supposed to be inspecting at whatever interval they decide.
One response to this dream is to ask the proponent to imagine Latino citizens asked to comply with the licensing, inspection, and similar government intrusion in Maricopa Co. under Sheriff Arpaio, or African-Amercian citizens asked to put up with such intrusion in Ferguson, MO. Anyone who believes that law enforcement in certain areas is racist can’t seriously think that these restrictions aren’t going to disproportionately impact minorities. Question then is why they think that’s an acceptable result.
Couldn’t bring myself to read past the bait-and-switch intro of the AAP rant. She jumps from fatal gun injuries of children (compared only to other high-income countries) to all unintentional fatal injuries of children (including falls, drownings, vehicle accidents, etc.) to (presumably non-fatal) trauma of children who’ve witnessed a shooting to total gun deaths (all ages – accidents, homicides, suicides) per capita. What a hash of numbers instead of focusing on acidental child gun deaths.
Why is the life of an innocent child worth more than that of an innocent adult? And, does the dramatic change take place at a particular age, or do we just make it up as we go along?
The fact that they are proposing eminent domain shows how they utterly fail to understand the situation. It doesn’t matter what they do to Cody Wilson or his gun design. Cody has shown what can be done. Now others will follow in his footsteps. They will produce better 3D printable guns. 3D printing technology will improve, and soon we’ll be 3D printing quality metal gun components. The genie is out of the bottle. Cody’s actions have permanently and irreversibly changed the landscape. If the antigun side actually understood this, they wouldn’t be wasting time trying to go after his particular (first-generation, and not particularly good) gun design. This is yet another indication of the antigun side’s fundamental failure to understand the reality of the situation they are trying to control.
Treating a gun like a car…. So if I choose to haul (carry) an unlicensed car in an enclosed (concealed) trailer do I have to have a license or insurance or inspection for said car? At most I would have to prove ownership. Now if I stop somewhere and I want to use that car on public property, then everything changes. I don’t ever plan on using a firearm on public property, if my life is in danger and I have to, then I will have to take the consequences for my actions, just like if the only car I had on my property was not licensed or insured and I had to drive it to the hospital for an emergency. So fine, treat guns like cars, licensing and insurance for those operating (not carrying) a firearm on public property on a regular basis.
It is part of the canons of statutory construction that, if there are two interpretations that fit particular language equally well, but one of those interpretations would leave some other part of the law without legal effect, the other interpretation should be inferred to be correct. To interpret the Takings clause to allow the government to suppress any speech at will under the guise of “the public good” would effectively nullify the First Amendment, and therefore such an interpretation should be rejected.
The copyright laws already displace the First Amendment in a number of instances. The courts have ruled that copyright laws are an exception to the First Amendment because such exemption prospers a public good (protection against non-copyright holders profiting from the labors of the holder). Protecting the public from the scourge of invisible, untraceable, undetectable firearms is an even greater public good.
I don’t see favorable rulings against using copyrights and eminent domain to further suppress free speech. People who believe in rule of law, in first principles, in constitutional protections shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking those beliefs are a bulletproof shield to tyranny. Those attacking us do not share your reverence for the constitution; always looking for ways to cleverly use law against the public.
So once again, apparently, it is time to remind folks that it is the *use* of cars that is regulated, not the *ownership* of cars.
Similarly, the *use* of firearms is heavily regulated, the ownership of them is not supposed to be. (I’ve had people claim that firearm use is not regulated to which I reply by suggesting they pop off a few rounds in their front yard or a neighborhood playground and see what happens)
I’ve heard this stupid argument what seems like a million times and it never ceases to amaze me that the people proposing it can’t seem to grasp the difference between regulation of usage and restrictions on ownership.
Here is a fun thought experiment for them – If guns and cars were regulated exactly the same, and you were in a fender bender, there is a good chance the police would seize the cars involved and then come to your home and confiscate any other vehicles you own. Still sound like a good idea?
Oh, don’t be silly. Assuming you have done *absolutely nothing* wrong, you can get them back in a few years, though they may have a lot of miles on them.
LOL! Except there really is no copyright. Because it’s in the public domain, for free. It’s not like this is something secret that the government has a compelling interest. Wilson wants it in the public domain, for free, and has absolved any right he has regarding them, in copying. This is some severely twisted thought processes to assume Wilson has a copyright and that the government can actually take it.
I would love to see them do this. I want to see it. I want to see that absolute totalitarianism at work. Show me.
I can’t begin to detail the horrifying nature of this idea. Not just with guns, but with anything. It is so totalitarian in nature, and the compelling interest, is only that of the ideologues that support such a measure. And all it really is, is political squashing of Cody Wilson. All the files will remain in the public domain. People making files will continue to do so. This is nothing more than a political message, brought down by the leftist iron fist.
Then I can have whatever firearm I like, no matter how deadly, free of any regulation whatsoever, as long as I keep it on my private property.
That is what I could have – if we regulated guns like cars.
This is because I can sell a car without registration if kept on private property. I have to register it, if I drive it on the road. I can remove the VIN number. I can remove the license plate. I can do all that, and no registration, if I keep it on private property. If I keep it on my private property, I don’t need any insurance. I don’t need any seat belts. I can modify that vehicle to any configuration I want. As long as I keep it on my private property. This is the reality.
I would LOVE it, if guns were regulated like cars. Then I could have rocket lauchers, tanks, machine guns, etc, and in complete privacy.
The Left is just trying to make “Public Health” synonymous with “Public Safety”, which is synonymous with “Public Oppression”…
Regarding the argument to impose mandatory insurance requirements on gun owners, just look at what is going on in NY with its DIckTater Cuomo: they’ve attempted to regulatorily – terrorize insurance companies out of providing liability insurance to gun owners. So the agenda goes like this: require liability insurance to be a gun owner, but, oh, wait, it’s against some tinhat despot’s “idea of good public policy” to allow insurance to be provided to gun owners, and/or they, through bureaucratic terrorism, will make the availability of any such liability insurance financially or otherwise infeasible to actually get and maintain.
Copyright law will not stop the distribution of files for printing firearms.
The copyright of Mickey Mouse did not stop the creation of Mighty Mouse or any other mouse cartoon.
Even the idea of copyright law stopping the distribution of files for printing a specific firearm, let’s say an AR-15 lower, is also flawed because the file is closer to a software program than a novel or a cartoon character. When your print a PostScript file, for example, your printer is running a program written in the PostScript language that describes the page it is printing. The language for 3-D printers is G-Code. Owning the copyright for a PostScript file that prints the lyrics for a song is not the same as holding the copyright to the song.
Gag lot of problems with seizing the copyright to the CAD/CAM files, but one big one is that the copyright is extremely “thin”. That is because copyright Original expression and not functionality. When both are present, you have to filter out the functionality before you get to looking for original expression, and any time you can’t separate them gets treated as functional, and, thus not protected by copyright. These are CAD/CAM files, which means that they are mostly, if not almost entirely, functional. And the way to identify expression is to remove something from the file, and if the file doesn’t work to produce a gun part, whatever was removed was functional, and not covered by copyright. In short, anything in those files that is necessary for creating a gun or gun part is not covered by copyright. Period.
Bruce nailed it. Copyright protects only the original expression of ideas. It does not protect the ideas themselves, only the way they are expressed. So condemnation of the copyright (if there is one) would not have the effect that the gungrabbers desire.
The author may be confusing patent with copyright, but to my knowledge Cody’s magic formula for 3D printed guns is not patented.
Honestly, people, this is first year law school stuff.
I dont know about you, I am tired of hearing about “public health” approaches. This snake oil has been around since the late 1800s and really is a pseudo scientific wrapper for socialism (i.e. hold law abiding good people accountable for bad choices of others). When we all suffer for the bad choices of one, thats the heart of socialism.
The weight levied by the 1st Amendment carries a far greater good than can ever be attributed to eminent domain in any form, for any reason. Open discourse is the lubricant of Freedom and Liberty. To loose it is to loose the Republic.
I am tired of hearing about “public health” approaches!