Defense Distributed Prevails...

Discussion in 'Legal' started by climbnjump, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:18 PM.

  1. climbnjump

    climbnjump Member

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



    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

    Mar 16, 2014
  3. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Apr 29, 2006
    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
    • Contributing Member

    hdwhit Member

    Nov 16, 2015
    Frisco, TX

    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

    Jun 1, 2016
    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 at 1:52 PM
  6. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    May 10, 2005
    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
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018 at 1:49 PM
  7. Hunter86004

    Hunter86004 Member

    Jun 1, 2018
    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.
  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