Quantcast

Defense Distributed Prevails...

Discussion in 'Legal' started by climbnjump, Jul 11, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. climbnjump

    climbnjump Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Messages:
    494
    Location:
    Upper Midwest
    Sorry if this has been posted already, but a quick search didn't show it.

    https://www.saf.org/doj-saf-reach-settlement-in-defense-distributed-lawsuit/

    Quote:

    Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees, and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint.
     
    Neo-Luddite likes this.
  2. rabid wombat

    rabid wombat Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2014
    Messages:
    194
    Location:
    TX
  3. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,382
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    A victory for the parties. But this was a settlement so it really doesn't necessarily mean much for anyone else. A settlement is simply an agreement between the parties to litigation.

    The only part of the settlement that will have wider application is explained here:
    And we'll need to see what those regulations say.
     
    rabid wombat likes this.
  4. hdwhit

    hdwhit Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2015
    Messages:
    4,544
    Location:
    Frisco, TX
    Amen.

    Just look at the changes in the regulations in 26 USC 41 between about January 2001 and January 2004, where the definition of "qualified research" for tax purposes underwent an apparent "180 degree shift".

    The regulatory process is inevitably a "sausage making" process that interested parties should fully involve themselves with. But, until new regulations are promulgated, people should be careful testing the limits of statutory or regulatory (in this case, ITAR) authority. Case-law is littered with firms that have successfully challenged statutes and regulations but who have been brought to bankruptcy as a consequence of the cost of defending their rights.
     
  5. cjwils

    cjwils Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Seattle region
    "modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military"
    If that is true, then doesn't this this lay some groundwork for saying - under the 1939 Miller case - that such guns could be banned because they are not military?
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  6. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,580
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    ... doesn't this this lay some groundwork for saying - under the 1938 Miller case - that such guns could be banned because they are not military?

    This administrative decision was about whether SD printer data to build small arms were military arms under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) which covers military arms.

    You need an end user certificate for military weapons (especially machine guns) moved between countries. Some outfits wanted ITAR rules to apply to deer slug guns equivalent to combat shotguns, target or varmint rifles equivalent to sniper rifles, police utility vehicles equivalent to combat vehicles.

    Saying that the AR is "not inherently military" arms for ITAR purposes is not the same as saying it is not suitable for militia training under U.S. v Miller (1939). I read the doctrine under the Miller 1939 decision as that guns suitable for militia duty were especially protected by the 2A (but so-called "gangster weapons" under the NFA like Miller's sawed-off shotgun could be restricted).

    In the case of D.C. v Heller, 2008, in regards to the federal district's handgun ban and ban on working firearms in the home for self-defense, the summary says the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

    That's a new wrinkle. Heller changed from protection of a firearm connected with militia service to protection of firearms used for traditionally lawful purposes (including civilian marksmanship training with military weapons as well as self-defense in the home). Guns may be subject to reasonable regulation in the name of public safety, but they cannot be banned. Next to fall I suspect are onerous restrictions amounting to defacto bans but that needs a squeaky clean plaintiff like Heller or McDonald (not a bootlegger like Miller).


    ITAR Compliance for Digital Companies
    https://digitalguardian.com/blog/what-itar-compliance
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018
  7. Hunter86004

    Hunter86004 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2018
    Messages:
    105
    Location:
    Flagstaff, Az
    I wonder where we would be today if Miller and his attorney would have been able to plead their case to the SC.
     
  8. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,489
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    After we get done with the state challenges, it seems.

    It may not matter to the case, but just as happened with PGP years ago, the cat has gotten out of the bag, she had kittens, the kittens have shredded the bag, and that makes arguments over how to get her back in that bag a bit moot.

    The Kittens at CodeIsFreeSpeech.com won't be stopped by any judge.
     
    edwardware likes this.
  9. edwardware

    edwardware Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    985
    I cannot understand why anyone considers this sort of finding a victory. The 2nd Amendment protects the "people's right to keep and bear" military arms, hence the word 'militia'.

    Imagine a scenario where this error has been made, and promoted as a victory for liberty, in 1820; metallic cased ammunition is just being invented in France. Once the first brass-cased cartridges appear in the States, they are declared suitable only for military use, not sporting. Since the courts have lied, and gotten away with it, 'the people' are not permitted to own metallic cartridges. . . muzzle loaders and paper cartridges only.

    This is not a meaningless point. Look to the future are realize that we are approaching the end of combustion-pushing-a-metal-slug arms development. In 50-100 years the common military arm will probably be some sort of directed energy weapon, and it will probably be developed by a government. If we flub this question, and permit the 2nd Amendment to be re-interpreted as applying to 'sporting arms', we will have lost by acceding to an obvious erosion of the right in the name of temporary victory.
     
  10. Telekinesis

    Telekinesis Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,579
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    This is an out of court settlement between two parties: a regulator and a company. This is not a ruling by a court that creates binding precedent.

    We also have to take context into account regarding what ITAR is and how a controlled item is defined. ITAR regulates the movement of military weapons and other articles (for example, night vision and body armor) - the operative word there is "military". For an ITAR regulator to say that an item is not military is the same as them saying "this item is not subject to regulation under this act". Also, ITAR is handled by the state department, not the ATF, so this settlement doesn't even tell us what ATF thinks.

    While the wording of that quote is interesting, it's not exactly "the sky is falling and the Miller precedent (that has been ignored for years) is completely invalidated".
     
  11. edwardware

    edwardware Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    985
    Certainly true; nonetheless this finding reflects a growing trend of explaining (or excusing) civilian possession of weapon X (ARs, semi pistols, etc) as reasonable because the weapons 'aren't military' or 'are common'. That's going to backfire in a big way.

    We should be justifying the people's possession of weapons, because those weapons are useful for warfare.
     
    AlexanderA likes this.
  12. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,382
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    The Supreme Court ruling in Heller pretty much put an end to that line of argument.
     
  13. publius

    publius Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,489
    Location:
    Punta Gorda, FL
    It was bound to happen.

    You can get the Liberator code in a bound paper volume.

    Hah!

    Here is a book that you need to buy that many in the gun control industry would like to see banned. It is called The Liberator Code Book: An Exercise in Free Speech. The book is exactly what it says it is - the 3-D printing code for the Liberator pistol in book form. Think of the $15 cost of this book as a donation to the advancement of free speech.​

    I just love kittens!
     
  14. Kaeto

    Kaeto Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,528
    Location:
    Lincoln Park, Mi.
    I have the blueprints for the WW II Liberator pistol in pdf format.
     
  15. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,382
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Wandering off-topic.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice