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

[angelatc]

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."

[Lucille]

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.

[puppetmaster]

Everyone has their copies correct to distribute...right?

[dannno]

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..

[Brian4Liberty]

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.

[XNavyNuke]

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

[TheTexan]

The national security interests are high though,,

Just imagine,, if terrorists had guns!

The horror!