Judge Says 2A Doesn't Protect Guns

SOTG 224 - Fed Judge says 2A does NOT protect firearms manufacturing

(Photo Source: JAY JANNER/AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN/AP)

Yet another sitting Federal Judge has reinterpreted the Bill of Rights to support the overreach of the state and curtail the actions and rights of the citizen. Are “Rights” in the United States of America really just privileges?

Paul calls out social bullying in Connecticut where a woman attacked a teenager for “taking picture” with a quad-copter. Yeah, that really happened. We have a special guest for SWAT Fuel Fitness Talk. Be sure you are tuned in.

SOURCES:

From freebeacon.com:

“A British sniper from the elite SAS saved an 8-year-old boy and his father from an Islamic State executioner by shooting the executioner in the head last month.

The SAS sniper team was reportedly tipped off to the execution in the Syrian desert by an Iraqi spy. When they arrived, they found that several Shia Muslims had already been beheaded by their captors. The IS (commonly referred to as ISIS) executioner, flanked on both sides by armed companions, was preparing to kill a young boy and his father next when the SAS team deployed its .50-caliber silenced sniper rifle.

“The ISIS thug who was about to decapitate the father was shot in the head and collapsed,” an unnamed source told the Daily Star. “Everyone just stared in confusion.”

“The sniper then dispatched the two henchmen with single shots–three kills with three bullets.”

The young boy and his father were last spotted heading to the Turkish border as the Syrian town they were evacuating celebrated the killing of the IS fighters.

“It was a good day’s work,” the source told the paper.“

From www.wired.com:

“THIS WEEK MARKS the two-year anniversary since Cody Wilson, the inventor of the world’s first 3-D printable gun, received a letter from the State Department demanding that he remove the blueprints for his plastic-printed firearm from the internet. The alternative: face possible prosecution for violating regulations that forbid the international export of unapproved arms.

Now Wilson is challenging that letter. And in doing so, he’s picking a fight that could pit proponents of gun control and defenders of free speech against each other in an age when the line between a lethal weapon and a collection of bits is blurrier than ever before.

Wilson’s gun manufacturing advocacy group Defense Distributed, along with the gun rights group the Second Amendment Foundation, on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the State Department and several of its officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry. In their complaint, they claim that a State Department agency called the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) violated their first amendment right to free speech by telling Defense Distributed that it couldn’t publish a 3-D printable file for its one-shot plastic pistol known as the Liberator, along with a collection of other printable gun parts, on its website.

By posting a file online, the DDTC claimed Defense Distributed had potentially violated arms export controls—just as if it had shipped AR-15s to Mexico.
In its 2013 letter to Defense Distributed, the DDTC cited a long-controversial set of regulations known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which controls whether and how Americans can sell weapons beyond U.S. borders. By merely posting a 3-D-printable file to a website, in other words, the DDTC claimed Defense Distributed had potentially violated arms export controls—just as if it had shipped a crate of AR-15s to, say, Mexico. But the group’s lawsuit now argues that whether or not the Liberator is a weapon, its blueprints are “speech,” and that Americans’ freedom of speech is protected online—even when that speech can be used to make a gun with just a few clicks.

“The internet is available worldwide, so posting something on the internet is deemed an export, and to [the State Department] this justifies imposing a prior restraint on internet speech,” says Alan Gura, the lawyer leading the lawsuit, using the legal term “prior restraint” to mean censorship of speech before it’s published. “That’s a vast, unchecked seizure of power over speech that’s…not authorized by our constitution.”

“If code is speech, the constitutional contradictions are evident…So what if this code is a gun?” asks Cody Wilson, Defense Distributed’s founder, a radical libertarian who dropped out of the University of Texas law school to run the firearms access group. “Nothing can possibly stand in the way of this being disseminated to the people, and yet they insist on maintaining the power to do so.”

The Return of the Crypto Wars
ITAR already has a long history of being used to threaten Americans who publish controversial code. In the 1990s, the same regulations were used to threaten cryptographers with prosecution for posting online the first freely available strong encryption tools. Under ITAR regulations, a piece of uncrackable crypto software like PGP was considered a military munition. PGP inventor Phil Zimmermann was even investigated by the Department of Justice for three years at the height of what has come to be known as the Crypto Wars.

The Justice Department eventually dropped that investigation without an indictment or an explanation. But before it did, the cryptographer Dan Bernstein sued the State Department, arguing that ITAR was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. He won. But while government lawyers appealed the case, control of encryption software exports was moved from the State Department to the Commerce Department and then protected by a new exception, preventing Bernstein vs. the United States from proving ITAR unconstitutional on first amendment grounds.

Wilson’s lawsuit, two decades later, is taking another shot at ITAR with that same first amendment argument. Only this time the fight isn’t over code erroneously labeled as a weapon. The code in question actually is a weapon.

“This is a second bite at the apple,” says Wilson. “It’s very much the spiritual successor to Bernstein.”

Not every lawyer is convinced that Defense Distributed’s free speech argument will be quite as successful as Bernstein’s. “The State Department’s takedown demand probably qualifies as a prior restraint, to which courts are incredibly hostile,” wrote intellectual property lawyer Ansel Halliburton in a guest article for Techcrunch after the State Department’s original letter to Defense Distributed. “But the ability to download a file, press ‘Print,’ and have gun parts come out could also tip some judges toward calling gun CAD files functional things and allowing the government to regulate them.”

Phil Zimmermann himself, who was threatened with prosecution for ITAR violations in 1993, says he supports Defense Distributed’s lawsuit and believes the free speech argument he made then should apply just as much to gun code as it did to crypto code. “I see this as very similar to the PGP situation,” he says. “I’m not a gun nut. I don’t own a gun. But publishing a blueprint for a gun should not be illegal.”

The Second and Fifth Amendments Are Getting Play, Too
Defense Distributed’s legal team on the case includes Alan Gura, a litigator who has successfully argued two second amendment cases before the Supreme Court, and ITAR-specialist attorney Matthew Goldstein. Wilson says that he’s been receiving additional legal advice from the civil liberties group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) since not long after receiving the State Department’s ITAR letter. The EFF declined WIRED’s request for comment.

In fact, that legal team is attacking the State Department with more than just the first amendment: Its complaint also cites the second amendment, arguing that by restricting Defense Distributed’s sharing of printable gun files the government denied the group’s members and followers the right to bear—and acquire—arms. And it questions the authority of the State Department to regulate the publication of technical data, a power it’s long assumed it had been granted by Congress under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976.

Defense Distributed is hitting the State Department with a fifth amendment argument, too. It claims that its staff had their right to “due process” violated. No government agency, it says, can hold the threat of prosecution over Defense Distributed’s head without even a decision on whether its publications are illegal or not—and without a time limit on when it must make that decision. Defense Distributed says it asked the DDTC for ITAR approval to publish the gun files after receiving its letter, and have waited two years without response.

The lawsuit seeks damages from the State Department for years of restricting Defense Distributed’s activities. But first, it seeks to have a judge place an injunction on the State Department that would prevent it from continuing to censor Defense Distributed’s files. If that injunction is granted, the group could immediately publish a slew of gun blueprints it’s developed over the last two years even before any resolution is reached in the lawsuit.

We’ve reached out to the State Department for comment on the lawsuit and will update when we hear back.

Of course, the State Department’s two years of invoking ITAR against Defense Distributed haven’t prevented its 3-D printable gun files from spreading across the web. Instead, a Streisand-Effect-like fear of government censorship helped spur more than 100,000 downloads of the Liberator blueprint in two days. By the time the file was removed from Defense Distributed’s websites, it had already appeared on the Pirate Bay and other bittorrent sites, where it’s become nearly impossible to erase. And in the years since, amateur gunsmiths on sites like FOSSCad and GrabCAD have continued to evolve the Liberator’s design and share their own blueprints for 3-D printable revolvers and rifles.

Technically, all of those sites likely violate ITAR too. But the proliferation of potentially ITAR-violating files across the internet shows just how absurd and futile the State Department’s task of policing that digital contraband has become, says Matthew Goldstein, the ITAR expert on Defense Distributed’s legal team.

“You just can’t do this. You can’t punish someone for speech just because someone believes that speech could be used for bad stuff…If you even just think about all the reposts, it’s a mess,” says Goldstein. “It’s like grabbing at particles of smoke.“

From www.thetruthaboutguns.com:

“Cody Wilson and the Second Amendment Foundation are fighting the good fight against some extremely restrictive ITAR regulations that have put the kibosh on Defense Distributed’s 3D printed firearms files. It looks like the first skirmish in that battle has gone to the government, with a Texas judge denying a preliminary injunction that would have allowed Defense Distributed to distribute their CAD files online again. TTAG has exclusively obtained the judge’s order, and while an immediate appeal has already been filed, there are still some real gems in here that show how the legal system thinks about the Second Amendment and free speech in general. Hint: it ain’t good . . .

While the founding fathers did not have access to such technology, Plaintiffs maintain the ability to manufacture guns falls within the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs suggest, at the origins of the United States, blacksmithing and forging would have provided citizens with the ability to create their own firearms, and thus bolster their ability to “keep and bear arms.” While Plaintffs’ logic is appealing, Plaintiffs do not cite any authority for this proposition, nor has the Court located any. The Court further finds telling that in the Supreme Court’s exhaustive historical analysis set forth in Heller, the discussion of the meaning of “keep and bear arms” did not touch in any way on an individual’s right to manufacture or create those arms. The Court is thus reluctant to find the ITAR regulations constitute a burden on the core of the Second Amendment.

In other words, while you absolutely have the right to keep and bear arms, there’s nothing that protects the right to manufacture those firearms. Or so this specific judge says. That could have broad reaching implications for people who manufacture their own guns using 80% receivers, and possibly open the door for a whole new line of attack for gun control activists. Because if the manufacture of guns isn’t protected under the 2nd Amendment, then what’s stopping anti-gun states from declaring all manufacture illegal and running gun makers out of business?

There are a lot more concerning things in the document regarding the first amendment protections and how they don’t apply in the judge’s estimation, but this one is probably the most concerning for gun owners.“

Student of the Gun Radio airs every Monday through Thursday at 9 a.m. EST and can be found by going directly to www.StudentoftheGunRadio.com.Those using mobile devices can follow us with iTunes or Stitcher. SOTG Radio is a Think On! production. Student of the Gun is the #1 source for education, enjoyment and enlightenment of real-world firearms including: training, videos, radio, books and articles. A beginner once, a student for life. www.studentofthegun.com Being a Student of the Gun is not about being a novice or beginner. Student of the Gun represents a lifelong journey of education, enlightenment and the enjoyment of firearms. Each episode will introduce the viewer to new and interesting firearms as well as the latest gear to go with them. We will travel throughout the United States, seeking the advice and expertise of the best firearms trainers available. Sometimes deadly serious, sometimes just for fun, Student of the Gun will always strive to educate and entertain our viewers while offering them an insiders’ look at the worlds of firearms.

About the Host

Paul Markel: Host of Student of the Gun Radio

Paul G. Markel has worn many hats during his lifetime. He has been a United States Marine, police officer, professional bodyguard, and small arms and tactics instructor. Markel has been writing professionally for law enforcement and firearms periodicals for nearly 20 years, and has hundreds of articles in print. A regular guest on nationally syndicated radio talk shows, Markel is a subject matter expert in firearms training and use of force. Markel has been teaching safe and effective firearms handling to students, young and old, for decades and has also worked actively with 4H Shooting Sports programs. Markel holds numerous instructor certifications in multiple disciplines; nonetheless, he is, and will remain a dedicated Student of the Gun.

About the Co-Host

Jarrad Markel: Co-Host and Producer of Student of the Gun Radio

Not just another pretty face, Jarrad Markel has experience and training beyond his years. Jarrad has been training to be a fighter since elementary school when he first learned the art of collegiate wrestling. Now skilled in Jujitsu, Judo, Muay Thai, Sambo, the Way of the Fighting Pistol and Fighting Rifle, Jarrad is a well-rounded, tactical athlete with several professional MMA fights under his belt. More than a brute, Jarrad has brains as well. He is the lead editor and videographer for Student of the Gun and works directly for Think On! Productions creating a wide variety of video material. In addition, Markel is a skilled web & blog designer, building material for the Internet side of the house.

SAY THANKS TO OUR SPONSORS, PLEASE!

Bio
Latest Posts

Professor Paul Markel

Founder & CEO at Student of the Gun

Paul G. Markel has worn many hats during his lifetime. He has been a U.S. Marine, Police Officer, Professional Bodyguard, and Small Arms and Tactics Instructor. Mr. Markel has been writing professionally for law enforcement and firearms periodicals for nearly twenty years with hundreds and hundreds of articles in print. Paul is a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio talk shows and subject matter expert in firearms training and use of force. Mr. Markel has been teaching safe and effective firearms handling to students young and old for decades and has worked actively with the 4-H Shooting Sports program. Paul holds numerous instructor certifications in multiple disciplines and a Bachelor’s degree in conflict resolution; nonetheless, he is and will remain a dedicated Student of the Gun.