Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Court Says 3-D Printed Gun Specs Not Protected Free Speech

  1. #1

    Default Court Says 3-D Printed Gun Specs Not Protected Free Speech

    http://www.popsci.com/3d-printed-gun...ch-court-rules
    Yet we now live in a world where the files to print a gun exist, and people have indeed printed guns. Is this an activity the constitution protects?

    Decidedly no, according to a ruling handed down earlier this week from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, Defense Distributed v. United States Department of State, goes back to the creation of the first 3D printing of a gun, by the activist group Defense Distributed, in May, 2013.
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...fline-for-now/

    However, one member of the 5th Circuit, District Judge Edith Jones, directly disagreed with her colleagues. In a scathing dissent, she called it an "irrational representation" of the export regulations. She also described the government’s actions as "pure content-based regulation."
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Ordinarily, of course, the protection of constitutional rights would be the highest public interest at issue in a case. That is not necessarily true here, however, because the State Department has asserted a very strong public interest in national defense and national security. Indeed, the State Department’s stated interest in preventing foreign nationals—including all manner of enemies of this country—from obtaining technical data on how to produce weapons and weapon parts is not merely tangentially related to national defense and national security; it lies squarely within that interest.
    LOL Since when?

    That’s weird as heck! The ruling goes on to note that “The fact that national security might be permanently harmed while Plaintiffs-Appellants’ constitutional rights might be temporarily harmed strongly supports our conclusion that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the balance in favor of national defense and national security.”

    As Ars Technica notes, the opinion of the dissenting judge finds instead a complete lack of concern for free speech from the State Department, is using such a broad interpretation of the law to stop the sharing of these specific files online.

    Unless Defense Distributed appeals the ruling, it looks like files for printing guns aren’t protected by both the 1st and 2nd Amendments, but are instead protected by neither.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  4. #3

    Default

    Everyone has their copies correct to distribute...right?
    "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."
    James Madison

    "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams



    Μολὼν λάβε
    Dum Spiro, Pugno
    Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito

  5. #4

    Default

    Amazing, since this seems to be covered under both the first and second amendment. I mean, the forefathers were specifically talking about the printing press..
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  6. #5

    Default

    This would coincide nicely with Trump talking about the danger of online bomb information. Well, except when the left actually pushes it through the courts there is silence or cheers.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Amazing, since this seems to be covered under both the first and second amendment. I mean, the forefathers were specifically talking about the printing press..
    Absolutely! Of course it doesn't cover printing press parts made with a 3D printer, because the Founders could not have possibly anticipated the technology.

    XNN
    "They sell us the president the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us every thing from youth to religion the same time they sell us our wars. I want to know who the men in the shadows are. I want to hear somebody asking them why. They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are but theyre never the ones to fight or to die." - Jackson Browne Lives In The Balance

  8. #7

    Default

    The national security interests are high though,,

    Just imagine,, if terrorists had guns!

    The horror!
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!






Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-29-2015, 12:20 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-25-2014, 12:08 PM
  3. Free speech cases at top of Supreme Court's agenda
    By hillbilly123069 in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-03-2010, 06:51 AM
  4. Would You Consider This Protected Free Speech?
    By clb09 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 08-13-2009, 08:29 PM
  5. What speech is protected, and when is it protected?
    By Kludge in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-03-2008, 10:23 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •