Cody WIlson v State Department

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Adolph Oliver Bush

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 13, 2015
    1,940
    https://codeisfreespeech.com/

    https://archive.org/details/@anticensor1

    https://duudl3.xyz/

    http://thomashowl.com/defcad-mirror/

    Torrent magnet link:
    magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3ae4ba84392687e5ebfe75a9d122d819c61ebd91&dn=DEFCAD%20Firearm%20Files

    Funny that duudl3 has a plug for donating to the ACLU, considering they are pretty much anti-2A:
    https://www.aclu.org/blog/mobilization/aclus-position-gun-control


    "Many of the options now being considered raise no civil liberties concerns. That includes bans on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and bump stocks. Raising the minimum age for all gun ownership to 21, currently the legal age for purchasing a handgun, also raises no civil liberties issues, as research on brain development shows that young people’s impulse control differs from that of adults."


    And anti-1A: https://www.ocregister.com/2018/07/11/the-aclu-turns-its-back-on-free-speech/amp/

    “Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed,” the memo reads. Efforts to protect free speech should now be qualified by “factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur.”

    It is ok to let impulsive 18, 19, and 20 year olds choose the leadership of the most powerful nation on earth, or to go to war and die for it, as many of their parents and grandparents did, but not ok for them to buy a .22 for plinking cans?

    And it is ok to pick and choose winners and losers in the free speech arena because some people might profess thoughts "contrary to our values."

    The stupid, it hurts.
     

    themoose06

    Active Member
    Sep 11, 2016
    381
    Funny that duudl3 has a plug for donating to the ACLU, considering they are pretty much anti-2A:

    https://www.aclu.org/blog/mobilization/aclus-position-gun-control





    "Many of the options now being considered raise no civil liberties concerns. That includes bans on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and bump stocks. Raising the minimum age for all gun ownership to 21, currently the legal age for purchasing a handgun, also raises no civil liberties issues, as research on brain development shows that young people’s impulse control differs from that of adults."





    And anti-1A: https://www.ocregister.com/2018/07/11/the-aclu-turns-its-back-on-free-speech/amp/



    “Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed,” the memo reads. Efforts to protect free speech should now be qualified by “factors such as the (present and historical) context of the proposed speech; the potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur.”



    It is ok to let impulsive 18, 19, and 20 year olds choose the leadership of the most powerful nation on earth, or to go to war and die for it, as many of their parents and grandparents did, but not ok for them to buy a .22 for plinking cans?



    And it is ok to pick and choose winners and losers in the free speech arena because some people might profess thoughts "contrary to our values."



    The stupid, it hurts.



    I love it. Can’t drink a beer but you can go drive a tank, shoot machine guns, use explosives, fly planes at the same age in the military. Can die for your country but a beer? No way!

    Also couldn’t you be issued a handgun in the mil depending on MOS and while on duty be carrying that handgun under 21? But you still couldn’t buy one!

    I think at the very least logic would dictate that military members be exempt from some of these rediculous laws.
     

    txcat

    Member
    May 17, 2016
    38
    https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...ated-over-case-could-make-decision-by-monday/
    A federal judge in Seattle said he’ll decide by Monday whether to issue an injunction blocking a Texas man from publishing downloadable blueprints for producing 3D-printable guns, after lawyers argued the case before him early Tuesday.

    But whatever U.S. District Court Judge Robert Lasnik decides, he made it clear before retiring into chambers Tuesday that he doesn’t believe his court is the proper venue to resolve the issue.

    “You know, it’s a little bit frustrating to be sitting in this chair as a United States District Court judge and seeing this is an issue that should be solved by the political branches of government,” Lasnik said. “And I really hope and wish that the executive branch and Congress would face up to this and say, it’s a tough issue, but that’s why you got into public service to begin with.”

    ...

    On Tuesday, when Lasnik asked Meyers whether the administration, in fact, had reviewed the State Department’s decision on the issue after the temporary order was issued last month, Meyers said he could not say, noting only that the federal government’s position remains unchanged.

    “But where are the political branches to step up and deal with an important issue like this,” Lasnik wondered at the end of oral arguments. “It’s very frustrating, because there are justifiable criticisms: Who is this federal judge out in Seattle that’s going to make such an important decision?”

    Lasnik said he may issue a ruling in the case as early as Friday, but no later than Monday, the day before the temporary restraining order expires.
     

    txcat

    Member
    May 17, 2016
    38
    https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/technology/article217060080.html
    Steven Myers, a lawyer for the U.S. Justice Department disagreed, saying it's already illegal to possess plastic guns and the government is fully committed to enforcing that law. He argued that the states are focused on the wrong statute and the injunction should be denied.

    Lasnik questioned that logic, asking how the government can be "vigorously" enforcing a law banning plastic guns but not proactively stopping the undetectable, untraceable guns from being made in the first place.

    "People who don't have our best interests in mind can get these guns," which could lead to "shoe bomber" or "911 situations," Lasnik said.

    Those who would fail a background check, such as mentally ill people or felons, would be able to make a gun if they had access to a 3D printer, he said.

    "We see children shoot other children with what they think are toy guns," he said, "and the 3D guns look even more like toy guns."
     

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    There is no way they didn’t shop for a judge to say absolute infantile dribble like that.
     

    Allen65

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 29, 2013
    7,063
    Anne Arundel County
    There is no way they didn’t shop for a judge to say absolute infantile dribble like that.

    Of course they venue shopped, which is why they'll probably lose quickly on appeal. DOJ is correct, the issue has nothing to do with availability of any sort of guns in the US. DoS was merely exercising its legal authority to categorize what is and is not on ITAR. And the files in question are not illegal to possess or disseminate under state or federal law, although that'll probably change as quickly as blue state legislatures can pass bills.
     

    txcat

    Member
    May 17, 2016
    38
    User @analyticascent on Twitter attended the hearing today. Here's some of what he posted (click through on the Twitter link for some additional details/commentary):
    The first person that spoke was representing Washington State (I think Jeff Rupert was the name). He literally began his statement by highlighting that @Radomysisky is a self-described "crypto-anarchist" - as if that was even relevant to the merits of the case.

    He then went on to claim that not extending the existing TRO on the CAD file distribution would lead to "irreparable harm" - without even acknowledging that these are primarily files that have been on the web for half a decade now.

    Of course, Rupert also brought up the issue of metal detectors, specifically claiming an all-plastic gun could get past metal detectors and into the very court we were in.

    But the hyperbole didn't stop there, Rupert went on to mention that many schools now have 3D printers as part of various classes. He claimed that this alone meant that kids will literally **print guns** in schools if we don't stop CAD files from being accessible online.

    Rupert then went on to bring up the notion that 3D-printed guns are untraceable, all while neglecting to mention that criminals already have no trouble *filing off* serial numbers with traditional guns.

    He claimed "barrel forensics" (checking marking on fired rounds to somehow trace what gun it was shot from) would become impossible with printed guns due to smooth barrels.

    Rupert went on to quote this notorious Trump tweet in an effort to make a point - why this is even relevant isn't clear to me, partly because it's not even clear whether Trump is referring to CAD files or the guns themselves:
    I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn’t seem to make much sense!

    Another bizarre argument Rupert made in court shortly after that is the claim that the First Amendment does not apply to this case - and was his reasoning:
    Printing a gun is not "expressive" because all you do is "push print"
    Therefore, the 1A does not apply

    I'll wrap up the summary of Rupert's initial testimony by noting that he said "strict scrutiny does not apply to prior restraint" in this case (very debatable), and that there was acknowledgement that all this only applied to hosting files on the world wide web (not print).

    Overall, Rupert made numerous false claims in his initial testimony on behalf of the State of Washington against both @Radomysisky/@defdist as well as the State Department. It was incredible to watch - now I'll summarize the rest of the testimonies given.

    Someone with the last name of Meyers (I likely misspelled that) testified next on behalf of the State Department. For context: He was there to argue that the State Department had the authority to settle with @defdist in the way that it did.

    He began his testimony by saying that the government wanted to enforce the "Undetectable Firearms Act" as it exists - and wasn't seeking to overturn that.

    Judge Lasnik then asked why they were allowing for files that arguably allowed someone to break that law.

    Lasnik used a somewhat odd analogy that I don't think the State Department attorney responded to as strongly as he could have.

    This is paraphrasing what Lasnik said: "We stop heroin from being produced - and not just from being used - so the same should apply to gun designs"

    The problem w/Lasnik's analogy is that the TRO on CAD files isn't like stopping heroin from "being produced" - it's like prosecuting anyone who *publishes details about that process* on the internet - note the 1A distinction. That confusion slipped through in the hearing.

    Meyers didn't respond to Lasnik's false conflation as strongly as I think he could have. But he did go on to say that "military advantage" was the issue in deciding what export restrictions should apply to as far as technical data goes.

    Meyers went on to say the State Department had the proper authority to decide for themselves what the State Department is supposed to do, not Attorney Generals from various states.

    Earlier in court Rupert said that there's a 30-day notice of changes that the State Department is supposed to abide by when making changes - Meyer said it didn't apply

    Meyers also pointed out that the decision making took place over a five-year period - for those of you that don't remember or weren't aware, @DefDist originally released files for a printable gun in the spring of 2013 - and @Radomysisky had been fighting ITAR for five years.

    That five-year battle ended when the State Department settled last month, and it's ironic that they had to send Meyers in the first place to defend their own decision to settle.

    Lasnik argued that the munitions change should not apply to "undetectable" guns.

    Meyers stated that the arms export control act does not apply in this context.

    Lasnik retorted by paraphrasing what he thought @Radomysisky's *intentions* were: to put undetectable guns in the hands of everyone to fight off government tyranny (uncharitable take IMHO).

    I don't recall what specifically Meyers said in response to that, but I think he reiterated that the State Department carrying out it's change in how ITAR is applied was based on whether the files referred to anything foreign countries didn't have.

    The next attorney spoke on behalf of 2A issues pertaining to the case, but they seemed more to do with free speech matters; I have him jotted down as "Floris" for his last name.

    First, he pointed out that @DefDist can legally *mail* the files to people - so why not the web?

    He went on to point out (very correctly I think) that the cat is out of the bag as far as the CAD files are concerned. I think this was a **drastic understatement** but fair enough.

    He also reiterated that "item removal" from the munitions list did not take place.

    Both sides are debating whether changing how an item on the munitions list is *treated* is literally the same thing as *removing* it from that list entirely.

    If memory serves me right, that same attorney (last name pronounced "Floris") used an analogy about various membership types in the American Bar Association that went something like this:

    He was a member of the American Bar Association, but not for Washington State. If he changed membership so that he *was* part of the WA State ABA, that's a change in *treatment* - not a *removal* from the ABA altogether. Again, change in *treatment* vs *removal* from list.

    So between what the attorney for the State Department said, and what that other attorney (last name pronounced "Floris") also noted, boils down to this:
    -5yrs of litigation exceeds 30-day warning period the SD supposedly violated
    -The change was about treatment, not removal

    The hearing then when back to Rupert, who started by saying that CAD files for 3D-printed guns were not for "readily available guns"

    Rupert immediately made another claim that will make anyone who knows how the internet works facepalm in frustration:

    **He claimed that the temporary restraining order prevents the files from being readily available.**

    Yes, he said that in court.

    He finally concluded his argument by saying that "hand searches" (as in pat-downs) were the only security alternative if all-plastic guns proliferated.

    Judge Lasnik then made some final remarks:

    He said that regardless of what *he* had the authority to do, he hoped *other* branches of government would "do something" about this issue.

    My notes say that he promised to reach his conclusion on Monday, August 27th - a day prior to the current TRO expiring.
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,948
    Fulton, MD
    Prediction: The judge will uphold the TRO, it'll get sent to SCOTUS eventually which will say the files are free speech.

    Really, just because a computer can understand the files doesn't make them any less a medium for exchanging ideas among people than simple pen and paper. I thought all that was settled with the PGP suit.

    Amazing how one person, a judge in Washington state, can decide what's good for 350 million people. And it'll take years to overturn his wrong-headed decision.
     

    elwojo

    File not found: M:/Liberty.exe
    Dec 23, 2012
    678
    Baltimore, Maryland

    "You know, it’s a little bit frustrating to be sitting in this chair as a United States District Court judge and seeing this is an issue that should be solved by the political branches of government,” Lasnik said. “And I really hope and wish that the executive branch and Congress would face up to this and say, it’s a tough issue, but that’s why you got into public service to begin with."

    By this judge's own admission, he does not have the authority to address this suit (no shit). If he does anything less than let DefDist continue with their operations, he should be tarred and feathered to show that this type of willful judicial activism is not tolerated.
     

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    yczflafg
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,922
    Messages
    7,259,108
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom