Defense Distributed Vs. The US State Department - Lawsuit Filed

You've all likely heard of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed by now. The law school dropout, turned 3D printed gun advocate, has certainly made a name for himself. Well, today it's been noted that Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation have filed a lawsuit in Texas against the US State Department, Secretary of State John Kerry, and others, stating that the State Department had violated Wilson's freedom of speech, among other rights, by demanding the take down of his 3D printable filed for the Liberator two years ago. More details on this lawsuit and what it could mean within the 3D printing space can be found here: http://3dprint.com/63487/cody-wilson-3d-printed-gun/

Below is a look at Wilson and the 3D printed Liberator he designed. Where do you stand on this issue? Let's hear your thoughts!
http://3dprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/s2.jpg

I think the more important issue is if this lawsuit fails it set precedent for your right to free speech to be "superseded" based on the governments definition of what constitutes free speech. Either you have the right to free speech or you don't. Is the publishing of a CAD file free speech? The easiest way to control a large group of people is to limit areas of discussion, but allow heated debate of the areas that are allowed.

Only 115 downloads before it was removed, but you can still find them on the pirate bay and fosscad. All the fear-mongering on the subject of 3d printed guns is really hilarious. Also the idea that projects like this will somehow "put 3d printing in a bad light" is just absurd; So what if some ignorant politicians try and pass laws to try and suppress this project, and other "physibles" they deem too dangerous for the public? They cant. Even if they got the liberator files taken off line it can still be transferred as an image or on a t shirt. The Official outrage over this and other issues of "unauthorized" 3d printing only go to show that our current political structure is completely incapable of suppressing this technology.

As far as the actual lawsuit goes, I cant see how it could fail based on any legitimate interpretation of the law. Of course its not like that has stopped our courts in the past (read US v Miller on the legality of the national firearms act). But what arguments can they make? It is completely legal to share drawings and CAD files of firearm parts online, even the receivers for rifles and pistols (the only parts that are considered firearms under US law). Many of these files could be put directly into a CNC mill and result in the user having a fully functional firearm. There has been no government outcry over this. No calls that it violates ITAR (even though some of these files actually are US military equipment such as the M16 and its machine-gun parts). The only argument that can be made in the State Departments favor is that 3D printers are somehow fundamentally different technology and that they and their files need to be regulated differently and all previously available manufacturing data. That seems like a really tough case to make. It also seems like it will be really hard to sell to the public when the very open source, unregulated nature of 3D printing is what has brought so many amazing innovations, especially in the area of personal medical devices, prosthetics, etc. People have seen the good 3d printing can do, and any restriction on what people can and cant print, even if starts with some obscure weapon, will end up effecting all other aspects of home manufacturing as well. I hope anyone pursuing a knee-jerk government response to 3d printed weapons realizes this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pldruart

People have seen the good 3d printing can do, and any restriction on what people can and cant print, even if starts with some obscure weapon, will end up effecting all other aspects of home manufacturing as well

---

Unfortunately I don't think this is true. WE have seen the good that has come out of 3d printing because we are interested in it and seek out information about it. The general public has only seen what the mass media outlets have shown them and that is predominantly the guns bit.

The developers of the 3D printable Liberator pistol, Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed, had their request for an injunction against the State Department’s order to remove the files from their website denied this week. US District Judge Robert Pitman, who is also hearing Defense Distributed’s lawsuit against the State Department, said that they failed to prove that their right to distribute their files overruled any public safety concerns raised by the state department before the final case can be settled. You can read more about the case over on 3DPrint.com: http://3dprint.com/87970/liberator-injunction-denied/

"The 3D printable AR-15 rifle receiver allows a standard AR-15 to be modified to shoot larger, more destructive ammunition." by Scott J Grunewald · August 10, 2015

I would love to see you try and explain how this is possible. Unfortunately, you have no idea what you are talking about. A standard AR-15 receiver can be used with many different calibers of ammunition without modification, just by changing the upper receiver.

If you are trying to provide news, please limit your posts to news, not inaccurate fearmongering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RP_Dave

"The 3D printable AR-15 rifle receiver allows a standard AR-15 to be modified to shoot larger, more destructive ammunition." by Scott J Grunewald · August 10, 2015

I would love to see you try and explain how this is possible. Unfortunately, you have no idea what you are talking about. A standard AR-15 receiver can be used with many different calibers of ammunition without modification, just by changing the upper receiver.

If you are trying to provide news, please limit your posts to news, not inaccurate fearmongering.

---

The receiver pictured is actually an AR-10B receiver that was 3D printed by a member of FOSSCAD. It is made to fire the .308 Winchester (7.62x51 NATO) family of rounds, as opposed to the .223 Remington (5.56x45 NATO) family of intermediary rounds.

After losing an injunction earlier this month that would allow him to distribute his 3D printable Liberator pistol files online, gun rights advocate Cody Wilson has successfully files an appeal with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Wilson is claiming that when the State Department ordered him to remove his digital files from his website that his First Amendment rights were being violated. If the courts rule in his favor it will be a win for Wilson, but could have some unintended effects on the 3D printing industry. You can read more about the issue over on 3DPrint.com: http://3dprint.com/91850/cody-wilson-5th-circuit-court/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrafterAnon

The receiver pictured is actually an AR-10B receiver that was 3D printed by a member of FOSSCAD. It is made to fire the .308 Winchester (7.62x51 NATO) family of rounds, as opposed to the .223 Remington (5.56x45 NATO) family of intermediary rounds.

---

True. But missing info. The printed receiver is indeed an AR-10 which is designed to run the 7.62 NATO round. BUT, it was NOT modified to do so. The AR-10 was developed by Armalite back in the 1950's specifically for the 7.62/308 round. This is not a NEW design, simply a print of a very very old one.

AR-15s were designed for 5.56/223. AR-10s were designed for 7.62/308. Neither of which have squat to do with 3D printed anything.

Also, the caliber specification is not in the lower, its in the upper. I have one with an interchangable barrel allowing me to fire 5.56/223 or 300AAC/300Blackout while still utilizing the same lower, bolt and magazines. So with a quick swap, I can go from a 22 caliber round to a 30 caliber round.

Last week Liberator 3D printed handgun designer Cody Wilson received some support from Rep Thomas Massie from Kentucky and 14 other member of Congress. The lawmakers signed onto an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where Wilson is currently attempting to overturn a lower court ruling that upheld the State Department’s ban on posting 3D printable firearms online. As a Member of the Committee on Science, Space & Technology, and himself an engineer, Massie’s support is not insignificant and adds weight to Wilson’s assertions that his constitutional rights are being violated by the State Department. You can read more about this case over on 3DPrint.com: http://3dprint.com/112197/cody-wilson-support-congress/
http://3dprint.com/wp-content/upload...liberator4.jpg

I don't necessarily prescribe to Cody's world views, but I do believe he is absolutely right on this one.

Nonprofit digital rights advocacy group the EFF recently filed an amicus brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed. The EFF is backing him based on what they believe to be the State Department violating his first amendment rights to distribute non-physical objects like his 3D printable files for the Liberator handgun. According to the EFF, because the State Department offered Wilson no avenue to dispute their request that he obtain a license to distribute files, they were overstepping their powers and violating his freedom of speech. You can read more about the EFF’s involvement in this case over on 3DPrint.com. See 3DPrint.com for more details: http://3dprint.com/112346/eff-3d-printed-gun-case/