Preliminary injunction on 3-D printed guns granted

The Seattle judge found the arguments of the tyrants more convincing than those of who yearn to be free:

The private defendants raise the more substantive argument that a preliminary injunction will impair their First Amendment rights, a loss which, “for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373-74 (1976). The First Amendment argument raises a number of challenging issues. Is computer code speech? If yes, is it protected under the First Amendment? To answer those questions, one would have to determine what the nature of the files at issue here is: are they written and designed to interact solely with a computer in the absence of the intercession of the mind or will of the recipient or is it an expressive means for the exchange of information regarding computer programming and/or weapons manufacturing? Are the export controls of the ITAR a prior restraint giving rise to a presumption that they are unconstitutional? Is the AECA a general regulatory statute not intended to control the content of speech but only incidentally limiting its unfettered exercise? Or is the government attempting to regulate distribution of the CAD files because of the message they convey? Depending on which level of scrutiny applies, does the regulation advance important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and avoid burdening more speech than necessary or is the regulation narrowly tailored to promote a compelling Government interest?

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. The Court finds that the irreparable burdens on the private defendants’ First Amendment rights are dwarfed by the irreparable harms the States are likely to suffer if the existing restrictions are withdrawn and that, overall, the public interest strongly supports maintaining the status quo through the pendency of this litigation.

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. The federal defendants and all of their respective officers, agents, and employees are hereby enjoined from implementing or enforcing the “Temporary Modification of Category I of the United States Munitions List” and the letter to Cody R. Wilson, Defense Distributed, and the Second Amendment Foundation issued by the U.S. Department of State on July 27, 2018, and shall preserve the status quo ex ante as if the modification had not occurred and the letter had not been issued until further order of the Court.

I’m on the side of Code Is Free Speech and suggest you get your 3-D printed gun CAD files there.

10 thoughts on “Preliminary injunction on 3-D printed guns granted

  1. One thing is clear: the judge in this case is incapable of rational thought.

    Consider: he points out that the plaintiff has a perfect right to publish his work within the USA. And yet he permits that right to be infringed — based on the argument from the states that such publication within the USA would hurt the anti-gun practices of those states.

  2. There is an enormous and brazen lie at the core of this decision. That the state’s are harmed by the _export_ of the 3D files.

  3. Defense Distributed no longer controls the distribution of these files. These files are available all over the Internet. The distribution of the files is a fait accompli. Yet this judge and a couple dozen Attorney Generals piled into this lawsuit against Defense Distributed. All the judge and Attorney Generals are doing is signalling that they are very useful idiots.

  4. Pingback: Quote of the day—FedUp | The View From North Central Idaho

  5. Pingback: Judge rules against free speech

  6. What a horrible, wrong decision. I never read a line in the Constitution saying that the harm suffered by the State overrules individual rights. Hell, I stupidly thought that was the whole point of the Constitution, to make the State suffer limitation of its authority exactly and especially when compared against individual rights.

  7. “All the judge and Attorney Generals are doing is signalling that they are very useful idiots.”

    Virtue signalling. This is how you publicly attest to being one of the Gang.

    Gang branches: MSM, Deep State, SJW, socialist, One World Order, No Borders, Historically Ignorant, neo-conservative, Democrat, Big Government, government schooling, uncontrolled-immigration, Anti-Freedom.

    I’m sure I’ve overlooked a few fellow-travelers affiliates.

  8. Depriving second amendment rights by depriving first amendment rights. Clever. And who’s going to stop them, after all?

    Also; as though, if one had the ability to actually make a gun using whatever technology, one couldn’t measure out a real gun, or laser scan its parts, and copy it. But building one from scratch is also quite possible, and in some ways easier, once you understand the principles of operation.

    Also; the slam-fired sub machinegun is the simplest repeating firearm ever made; simpler than Colt’s revolver of the 1850s, simpler than the Henry lever action repeater of the 1860s, and simpler than a Glock which can be built from an 80% receiver.

    Obviously then, bereft of all logic, this recent infringement is about establishing a precedent and nothing else. Like everything else that happens in government and politics, it is a power play, laying in the steps and the precedents toward more coercive power.

    The Powers That Should Not Be have wanted control over the internet since its earliest inception, and here we see yet another way of getting what they want.

    It’s about establishing a counterfeit authority. If we appeal to that “authority” by way of rectifying it, we’re missing the point, for in so doing we are, by our own actions, recognizing that “authority” as being above God’s power to establish law (referencing the language of “all Men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” in the Declaration of Independence).

    These miserable twerps actually think of themselves as gods, and you’ll never talk them out of THAT. Kind of a bitch ain’t it? The only action that might serve to stave off the assault would be to get criminal charges filed against the perpetrators, as individuals, for conspiracy and/or sedition.

    Wearing a certain robe or holding a certain title doesn’t put you above the Law. Who’s going to actually prove that to them? Is there a prosecutor anywhere with the balls to do it and with the persistence to actually carry it through? Just one?

  9. Get those files up on Hillary’s private server. That way no one in any branch or department or bureau of government, anywhere in the U.S., will be able to do even so much as acknowledge their presence. Everyone else in the world of course would have free access to them.

  10. Pingback: This could never be abused | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.