Landmark legal shift opens pandora’s box for diy guns

Dec 2013
33,811
19,362
Beware of watermelons
FIVE YEARS AGO, 25-year-old radical libertarian Cody Wilson stood on a remote central Texas gun range and pulled the trigger on the world’s first fully 3-D-printed gun. When, to his relief, his plastic invention fired a .380-caliber bullet into a berm of dirt without jamming or exploding in his hands, he drove back to Austin and uploaded the blueprints for the pistol to his website, Defcad.com.

He'd launched the site months earlier along with an anarchist video manifesto, declaring that gun control would never be the same in an era when anyone can download and print their own firearm with a few clicks. In the days after that first test-firing, his gun was downloaded more than 100,000 times. Wilson made the decision to go all in on the project, dropping out of law school at the University of Texas, as if to confirm his belief that technology supersedes law.

The law caught up. Less than a week later, Wilson received a letter from the US State Department demanding that he take down his printable-gun blueprints or face prosecution for violating federal export controls. Under an obscure set of US regulations known as the International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Wilson was accused of exporting weapons without a license, just as if he'd shipped his plastic gun to Mexico rather than put a digital version of it on the internet. He took Defcad.com offline, but his lawyer warned him that he still potentially faced millions of dollars in fines and years in prison simply for having made the file available to overseas downloaders for a few days. "I thought my life was over," Wilson says.

Instead, Wilson has spent the last years on an unlikely project for an anarchist: Not simply defying or skirting the law but taking it to court and changing it. In doing so, he has now not only defeated a legal threat to his own highly controversial gunsmithing project. He may have also unlocked a new era of digital DIY gunmaking that further undermines gun control across the United States and the world—another step toward Wilson's imagined future where anyone can make a deadly weapon at home with no government oversight.


Two months ago, the Department of Justice quietly offered Wilson a settlement to end a lawsuit he and a group of co-plaintiffs have pursued since 2015 against the United States government. Wilson and his team of lawyers focused their legal argument on a free speech claim: They pointed out that by forbidding Wilson from posting his 3-D-printable data, the State Department was not only violating his right to bear arms but his right to freely share information. By blurring the line between a gun and a digital file, Wilson had also successfully blurred the lines between the Second Amendment and the First.

"If code is speech, the constitutional contradictions are evident," Wilson explained to WIRED when he first launched the lawsuit in 2015. "So what if this code is a gun?”



www.wired.com/story/a-landmark-legal-shift-opens-pandoras-box-for-diy-guns/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
68,635
28,430
Colorado
For the longest time, I believed the Second Amendment followed the First Amendment because the Second insured the First, our Founders' logic.

It's truly inapplicable today. Being armed now won't stop the government. If the beast wants to crush you, it will, and you can't do a damned thing about it but fantasize that you can. That fantasy helps with the day-to-day, but it's a fantasy pure and true.

So, what is the mad race to arm founded in?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Dec 2014
27,870
15,370
Memphis, Tn.
For the longest time, I believed the Second Amendment followed the First Amendment because the Second insured the First, our Founders' logic.

It's truly inapplicable today. Being armed now won't stop the government. If the beast wants to crush you, it will, and you can't do a damned thing about it but fantasize that you can. That fantasy helps with the day-to-day, but it's a fantasy pure and true.

So, what is the mad race to arm founded in?
It's founded in the illusion that individuals possessing firearms are safer than those not having them. And that's true to a very limited extent. Yes, safer perhaps from a home intruder, that's about it.
But safer from a oppressive government, able to resist, defy and even over throw such a government. VERY questionable. If the Govt. wants you badly enough you're toast, that's all there is to it.
In such a "revolt' small arms such as rifles & pistols would be useful only for assassinations of Govt. agents, perhaps raids on isolated rural National Guard Armories to obtain serious weapons.
Basically the guy with a stack if AR-15's with 10,000 rounds of ammo in his basement is like the guy sitting at a stop light in city traffic in a Dodge Charger with 707 HP. He's just having a macho-man fantasy, that he has POWER and he sure LOOKS good! As i said, it fosters an illusion of individual power, control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
68,635
28,430
Colorado
insecurity

people base most decisions on emotion not intelect

this is a prime example
Bottom line though, the unceasing arming of America really sets the stage for American vs. American ... to the delight of our enemies.

We're getting a glimpse from all the Russia-NRA revelations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Jul 2018
4,442
2,000
Trump World! Where the circus is always in town.
Bottom line though, the unceasing arming of America really sets the stage for American vs. American ... to the delight of our enemies.

We're getting a glimpse from all the Russia-NRA revelations.
actually, throughout the cold war Russia never had a viable plan to invade as there assessment was that the country had so many guns in the hands of civilians that we could never be occupied. I have read that Japan, WW2, stayed away from landing here for the same reason.

Guns in our hands is not our enemies delight.

Also, IMHO, I do not think guns has that much to do with the divide. It's the social issues and racism.

If Obie was not elected or if Obie was white we would not have Trump today.
 
Dec 2012
20,565
8,515
California
For the longest time, I believed the Second Amendment followed the First Amendment because the Second insured the First, our Founders' logic.

It's truly inapplicable today. Being armed now won't stop the government. If the beast wants to crush you, it will, and you can't do a damned thing about it but fantasize that you can. That fantasy helps with the day-to-day, but it's a fantasy pure and true.

So, what is the mad race to arm founded in?
No, individuals have been making their own guns for centuries. Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms would be meaningless in practice unless the state afforded individuals the ability to exercise that right, which includes making their own guns. The Second Amendment still supports the 1st. Even in an era of heavy gun control making and owning a homemade gun is not against the law. The original argument for the 2nd amendment still rings true.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Dec 2012
20,565
8,515
California
It's founded in the illusion that individuals possessing firearms are safer than those not having them. And that's true to a very limited extent. Yes, safer perhaps from a home intruder, that's about it.
But safer from a oppressive government, able to resist, defy and even over throw such a government. VERY questionable. If the Govt. wants you badly enough you're toast, that's all there is to it.
In such a "revolt' small arms such as rifles & pistols would be useful only for assassinations of Govt. agents, perhaps raids on isolated rural National Guard Armories to obtain serious weapons.
Basically the guy with a stack if AR-15's with 10,000 rounds of ammo in his basement is like the guy sitting at a stop light in city traffic in a Dodge Charger with 707 HP. He's just having a macho-man fantasy, that he has POWER and he sure LOOKS good! As i said, it fosters an illusion of individual power, control.
The English King faced that illusion in 1776. Do you really believe that an all volunteer military would side with a rouge government?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Dec 2014
27,870
15,370
Memphis, Tn.
No, individuals have been making their own guns for centuries. Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms would be meaningless in practice unless the state afforded individuals the ability to exercise that right, which includes making their own guns. The Second Amendment still supports the 1st. Even in an era of heavy gun control making and owning a homemade gun is not against the law. The original argument for the 2nd amendment still rings true.
What makes you think it was common for citizens to manufacture their own firearms "for centuries?" Gunsmiths, like blacksmiths, had skills and tools the average citizen just did not have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Dec 2014
27,870
15,370
Memphis, Tn.
The English King faced that illusion in 1776. Do you really believe that an all volunteer military would side with a rouge government?
Our revolution would almost certainly have failed w/o the support of the state-of-the art professional French Army and Navy.

Some would and some would not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person