Cody WIlson v State Department

[ironpony]

It sounds like Cody will sell a USB stick or DVD sent by U.S. postal mail, but I hope it's actually a paid download. By requiring a credit card with a U.S. billing address, there's no reason he couldn't offer online download. Not only would this destroy the media narrative that the files can't be distributed online, but it would enrage gun control advocates because he's making a profit.

I bet the credit card companies may try to block sales, and I'm curious about the bitcoin interaction in that regard.

Just like police can be sued when they violate civil rights, can now this judge be sued? He admitted to violating their 1st amendment rights.

I was just wondering this, sue for the return of tax dollars wasted? ever been attempted?

 

[DC-W]

I bet the credit card companies may try to block sales, and I'm curious about the bitcoin interaction in that regard.

That's the power of cryptocurrency. Uninterrupted financial freedom. Do not need a third party to facilitate a transaction.
No relying on the whims of Orwellian financial powerhouses like Visa or Citibank, etc...

 

[esqappellate]

Here is the operative phrase from the Seattle district court's opinion:

"The Court declines to wade through these issues based on the limited record before it and
instead presumes that the private defendants have a First Amendment right to disseminate the
CAD files. That right is currently abridged, but it has not been abrogated. Regulation under the
AECA means that the files cannot be uploaded to the internet, but they can be emailed, mailed,
securely transmitted, or otherwise published within the United States." Slip op. page 25.

So, for example, Cody could dump all these files into DropBox and share the contents with any US Person, for free or for a fee. And yes, the world would definitely come to an end. Certain members of the MD General Assembly and the AGs of the plaintiff states, for example, would explode with righteous anger at the utter futility of this utterly stupid lawsuit by the States.

 

[Allen65]

Certain members of the MD General Assembly and the AGs of the plaintiff states, for example, would explode with righteous anger at the utter futility of this utterly stupid lawsuit by the States.

But is it truly futile if it motivates their base to show up at the polls in November and motivates donors to give $ to anti-2A candidates and organizations? Because that's what's really behind their action. They know the law. The inevitable, very public loss in the legal system is actually in their interests.

 

[iH8DemLibz]

C4 losing his shyt over 3D printed guns/ghost guns again.

Mass Shootings in Maryland. Ghost Guns in Maryland. 1302 Red Flag laws in Maryland.

The perfect storm.

 

[esqappellate]

But is it truly futile if it motivates their base to show up at the polls in November and motivates donors to give $ to anti-2A candidates and organizations? Because that's what's really behind their action. They know the law. The inevitable, very public loss in the legal system is actually in their interests.

I haven't gotten that cynical yet. A public thrashing in federal court never makes you look good. Of course, this is the 9th Circuit so who knows what will happen on appeal. The irony is great in this case is that the federal government need only give Congress the 30 day notice demanded by the judge and the case is over as the sole ground on which the PI was issued is that settlement agreement didn't comply with that requirement and thus was contrary to law under the APA.

And that legal theory under the APA is totally bogus. The judge stated:

The private defendants argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ APA claims because the APA does not apply “to the extent that . . . agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). The AECA expressly commits one type of decision to agency discretion as a matter of law: the decision to designate an item as a defense article or
defense service. 22 U.S.C. § 2778(h). The decision at issue here, however, is the removal of an item from the USML, which Congress chose not to make unreviewable.

So, under this "reasoning" placing an item on the AECA list is unreviewable but removing it is reviewable. And why is that? Because the AECA says that the Executive must give the Congress 30 days notice. So, the State AGs are now complaining that no notice was given, as if they are entitled to stand in the shoes of Congress. This whole opinion is laughable.

 

[DC-W]

www.defcad.com is now selling the files. However, since we are mere peasants in Maryland, we cannot login.
https://www.defcad.com/bluewall/

 

[DC-W]

Live Press Conference Here: https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/...-on-federal-judge-ruling-over-3d-printed-guns

 

[ironpony]

Will my "Tear Down the Wall" sticker get along with my "Build the Wall" sticker?

 

[themoose06]

www.defcad.com is now selling the files. However, since we are mere peasants in Maryland, we cannot login.
https://www.defcad.com/bluewall/

Same files from the codeisfreespeech website correct? If so, MD cannot stop this

 

[Allen65]

I haven't gotten that cynical yet. A public thrashing in federal court never makes you look good. Of course, this is the 9th Circuit so who knows what will happen on appeal. The irony is great in this case is that the federal government need only give Congress the 30 day notice demanded by the judge and the case is over as the sole ground on which the PI was issued is that settlement agreement didn't comply with that requirement and thus was contrary to law under the APA.

And that legal theory under the APA is totally bogus. The judge stated:

The private defendants argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ APA claims because the APA does not apply “to the extent that . . . agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). The AECA expressly commits one type of decision to agency discretion as a matter of law: the decision to designate an item as a defense article or
defense service. 22 U.S.C. § 2778(h). The decision at issue here, however, is the removal of an item from the USML, which Congress chose not to make unreviewable.

So, under this "reasoning" placing an item on the AECA list is unreviewable but removing it is reviewable. And why is that? Because the AECA says that the Executive must give the Congress 30 days notice. So, the State AGs are now complaining that no notice was given, as if they are entitled to stand in the shoes of Congress. This whole opinion is laughable.

This is the quality of discussion that makes MDS enjoyable and worth reading.

 

[DC-W]

Same files from the codeisfreespeech website correct? If so, MD cannot stop this

Precisely the point.

 

[esqappellate]

Same files from the codeisfreespeech website correct? If so, MD cannot stop this

This banner is priceless.

 

[BeoBill]

I haven't gotten that cynical yet. A public thrashing in federal court never makes you look good. Of course, this is the 9th Circuit so who knows what will happen on appeal. The irony is great in this case is that the federal government need only give Congress the 30 day notice demanded by the judge and the case is over as the sole ground on which the PI was issued is that settlement agreement didn't comply with that requirement and thus was contrary to law under the APA.

And that legal theory under the APA is totally bogus. The judge stated:

The private defendants argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ APA claims because the APA does not apply “to the extent that . . . agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). The AECA expressly commits one type of decision to agency discretion as a matter of law: the decision to designate an item as a defense article or
defense service. 22 U.S.C. § 2778(h). The decision at issue here, however, is the removal of an item from the USML, which Congress chose not to make unreviewable.

So, under this "reasoning" placing an item on the AECA list is unreviewable but removing it is reviewable. And why is that? Because the AECA says that the Executive must give the Congress 30 days notice. So, the State AGs are now complaining that no notice was given, as if they are entitled to stand in the shoes of Congress. This whole opinion is laughable.

And here's what Baron von F has tweeted about this:

We won another round in the fight against Trump's plan to allow blueprints for 3-D printable guns to be posted on the internet. These weapons are lethal, undetectable and untraceable. A threat to public safety.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eprints/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5e1a14d5fcb3

Source: https://twitter.com/BrianFrosh/status/1034155659552546816

He's REALLY stretching without committing himself to anything except "Trump bad." I think it shows he doesn't understand any of the issues in play here.

 

[esqappellate]

And here's what Baron von F has tweeted about this:


He's REALLY stretching without committing himself to anything except "Trump bad." I think it shows he doesn't understand any of the issues in play here.

You just can't fix legally stupid, especially when accompanied by willful ignorance.

 

[themoose06]

Does anyone know if these files can be corrupted on download? Should one download these files sale 3 separate times and unzip them 3 separate times? Hypothetically of course, just to be sure all the files were good

 

[Boxcab]

Does anyone know if these files can be corrupted on download? Should one download these files sale 3 separate times and unzip them 3 separate times? Hypothetically of course, just to be sure all the files were good

Highly recommended.

Don't forget to save said files in multiple locations online and on your computer as well as a removable thumb drive, or micro SD card, (or six) to assure they are not lost for future use. Maybe store one at a relatives house, you know, off-site backups are the schnitzel... or something like that.




.

 

[Allen65]

Does anyone know if these files can be corrupted on download? Should one download these files sale 3 separate times and unzip them 3 separate times? Hypothetically of course, just to be sure all the files were good

ZIP format includes error checking as part of the decompression process. In other words, if a ZIP file successfully decompresses, it was not corrupted in transit. But checksumming is only as good as the data input. In other words, if the files were corrupt prior to being compressed into a ZIP, the extracted files are corrupt and multiple downloads of the same ZIP archive makes no difference.

 

[Allen65]

The irony is great in this case is that the federal government need only give Congress the 30 day notice demanded by the judge and the case is over as the sole ground on which the PI was issued is that settlement agreement didn't comply with that requirement and thus was contrary to law under the APA.

So after 30 days elapses, it's "Defense moves to dismiss on grounds plaintiff's claims are moot." and the judge would have to sustain because there's no basis in law not to? That would be anticlimactic.

 

[swinokur]

ZIP format includes error checking as part of the decompression process. In other words, if a ZIP file successfully decompresses, it was not corrupted in transit. But checksumming is only as good as the data input. In other words, if the files were corrupt prior to being compressed into a ZIP, the extracted files are corrupt and multiple downloads of the same ZIP archive makes no difference.

Phil Katz approves of your post.