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!
  • Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,366
    SoMD / West PA
    Nov 14, 2011
    23
    New Windsor
    I haven't yet read through the entire thread but I wonder what exactly the expected outcome of all this is. Once the files are out there, they can't be reeled back in. Sure, they'll be harder to find (maybe) but they'll still be out there. And what about all the other files that don't come from Mr. Wilson or his company? Like the plastikov or that glock that was released not too long ago?

    And forgive the ignorance but how is printing out a receiver that different from milling one on a cnc? Subtractive vs additive manufacture? Not sure on the correct terms there.
     

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,174
    Outside the Gates
    I haven't yet read through the entire thread but I wonder what exactly the expected outcome of all this is. Once the files are out there, they can't be reeled back in. Sure, they'll be harder to find (maybe) but they'll still be out there. And what about all the other files that don't come from Mr. Wilson or his company? Like the plastikov or that glock that was released not too long ago?

    And forgive the ignorance but how is printing out a receiver that different from milling one on a cnc? Subtractive vs additive manufacture? Not sure on the correct terms there.

    Simply the irrational fear that its easier and more common.


    The emotional argument, not the logical argument
     

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,174
    Outside the Gates
    Thank you.

    I wonder if the arguments would be the same if people printed out 80% receivers which then had to be finished.

    The same emotional argument is currently being applied to all non-FFL licensed manufacturing, completely ignoring the fact that actual CRIMINALS use the straw purchase and theft modes for acquisition.
     
    Nov 14, 2011
    23
    New Windsor
    The same emotional argument is currently being applied to all non-FFL licensed manufacturing, completely ignoring the fact that actual CRIMINALS use the straw purchase and theft modes for acquisition.

    I guess that's what I don't get about their argument, the lack of logic.

    From all the legislation and fear mongering my understanding is that in order for criminals and prohibited persons to not have weapons, the law abiding citizens shouldn't have weapons, because they then can't be stolen by criminals and prohibited persons.

    And then home manufacture derails all of the legislation put into place. Or at least now that its much more accessible to the everyman. Guess i oughtta buy a 3d printer and a cnc mill before those become illegal.
     

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,174
    Outside the Gates
    I guess that's what I don't get about their argument, the lack of logic.

    From all the legislation and fear mongering my understanding is that in order for criminals and prohibited persons to not have weapons, the law abiding citizens shouldn't have weapons, because they then can't be stolen by criminals and prohibited persons.

    And then home manufacture derails all of the legislation put into place. Or at least now that its much more accessible to the everyman. Guess i oughtta buy a 3d printer and a cnc mill before those become illegal.

    Both have been considered for restriction.
     

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,174
    Outside the Gates
    As my millennial brothers would say:
    "3D printer goes brrrr"

    Seriously, what dystopia are we living in where we are banning knowledge?

    Newspeak, political correctness, removing statues, renaming roads, buildings and schools - its all banning knowledge
     

    Boxcab

    MSI EM
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 22, 2007
    7,867
    AA County
    (I hope this is the correct thread!)


    2nd Amendment just emailed an update.

    The Second Amendment Foundation and Defense Distributed today are celebrating a*court victory*in a long-running battle to allow online publication of information related to the 3D printing of firearms, thanks to a ruling by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that returns claims against the New Jersey attorney general (NJAG) to its jurisdiction.

    A district court order had wrongly severed the case against the NJAG, from a lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs, and transferring it to a federal court in New Jersey. Today’s ruling in the Fifth Circuit directs the district court in Texas to “request retransfer from its counterpart in New Jersey.”

    “It’s a huge victory for us,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “because New Jersey wanted to be severed from our legal action in their effort to prevent publication of the information by Defense Distributed, thus violating the company’s and SAF’s First Amendment rights to promote the exercise of Second Amendment rights.”

    This effort began when anti-gun-rights attorneys general, led by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, filed suit in the Western District of Washington to enjoin the State Department from authorizing the release of Defense Distributed’s files on the internet under a settlement from a previous SAF and Defense Distributed lawsuit. That effort was an offshoot of attempts by then-New Jersey AG Gurbir Grewal and several of his peers to prevent the plaintiffs’ distribution of materials related to the 3D printing of firearms.

    Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones stated, “Correctly assessed, the NJAG did not carry its burden to clearly demonstrate that transfer is clearly more appropriate than the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum. The district court erred legally and factually in virtually every aspect of this issue, and its decision, which has unnecessarily lengthened this litigation even more, represents a clear abuse of discretion for which mandamus is an appropriate remedy.”

    An earlier ruling by a Fifth Circuit panel held that the NJAG is “subject to the jurisdiction of Texas courts” in this case because Defense Distributed is a Texas-based company. Today, the Fifth Circuit ruling directs the district court to:

    Vacate its order dated April 19, 2021 that severed Defense Distributed’s claims against the NJAG and transferred them to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey;

    Request the District of New Jersey to return the transferred case to the Western District of Texas, Austin Division; and,

    After return, to reconsolidate Defense Distributed’s case against the NJAG back into the case still pending against the State Department.

    “This case has dragged on for years,” Gottlieb noted. “What today’s ruling clearly demonstrates is that attorneys general who violate our First and Second amendment rights will be held to answer by the courts, wherever the violations occur.

    “NJAG wanted their case severed and transferred,” he added, “and now that will not happen. It’s unfortunate that justice has been delayed so long. It’s time to move forward. This is a case we fully expect to totally win.”




    .

    Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,937
    Messages
    7,259,625
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom