Yeah Baby! I think this means it is now legal to distribute 3D Printer Design Files to print a handgun.
Consult with your attorney before doing it however!!!


The full story is at: https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/04...ment-of-state/


Defense Distributed v. United States Department of State


Fifth Circuit Declines to Enjoin Regulation of Online Publication of 3D-Printing Files.
The First Amendment protects most speech from prior restraint by the government. But technology has begun to test the boundaries of traditional First Amendment doctrine. The development of three-dimensional (3D) printing throws this issue into sharp relief ? with a 3D printer, one can ?print? a physical object from computer code.


1. Much like desktop printers, 3D printers generate their outputs through an additive process: they layer cross sections of material to build solid objects. The designs for these objects are controlled by computer-aided design files, which are data sets that use source code to define the geometric representation of an object. A computer program compiles the files? source code into object code, and this object code is transmitted to the 3D printer to execute the printing process. 3D printers are now available at stores like Home Depot, and the files for a variety of items are freely available online. Def. Distributed v. U.S. Dep?t of State, 838 F.3d 451, 454?55 (5th Cir. 2016).


If sharing this code is speech, the government might be hampered in regulating the physical objects that are printed. This question is particularly important when the object at issue is an untraceable weapon. Recently, in Defense Distributed v. United States Department of State,

2. 838 F.3d 451.
the Fifth Circuit refused to suspend a regulation restricting publication of computer-aided design (CAD) files that enable the public to print guns or gun parts using just a 3D printer. In denying an injunction, however, the court implicitly endorsed a sweeping interpretation of the First Amendment.


3. Id. at 458.
Because CAD files do not constitute speech under the First Amendment, their publication need not be measured against its standards.


Defense Distributed is a nonprofit organization committed to promoting Second Amendment rights by ?facilitating global access to . . . information . . . related to the 3D printing of arms? and publishing this information online for free.
4. Id. at 454.


In furtherance of this mission, the organization published a number of gun-related CAD files on its website. One published file enables users to print an AR-15?s lower receiver, which is the indispensable, regulated part of the weapon that bears a traceable serial number when conventionally manufactured.


5. Id.
Defense Distributed also published a file for the world?s first entirely 3D-printable handgun, ?The Liberator.?


6. Id. at 455.
In just two days, the Liberator file was downloaded approximately 100,000 times.


7. Katie Fleschner McMullen, Comment, Worlds Collide When 3D Printers Reach the Public: Modeling a Digital Gun Control Law After the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 2014 Mich. St. L. Rev. 187, 211.
But this success was short-lived. On May 8, 2013, Defense Distributed received a letter from the State Department alleging that, under the Arms Export Control Act


8. 22 U.S.C. ?? 2751?2799aa-2 (2012).
(AECA), the CAD files posted by the organization could not be ?exported? abroad ? in the form of online publication ? without government preapproval.


9. Def. Distributed, 838 F.3d at 455. The government warned that the files may have included International Traffic in Arms Regulations?controlled data related to items on the U.S. Munitions List. Id.Defense Distributed removed these files, but they remain freely accessible through third-party sites such as The Pirate Bay.


10. Id. at 456.
After lengthy waits for approval to post further files, Defense Distributed, together with the Second Amendment Foundation, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.


11. Def. Distributed v. U.S. Dep?t of State, 121 F. Supp. 3d 680, 687?88 (W.D. Tex. 2015).
The plaintiffs alleged that the State Department?s interpretation of the AECA created an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, and sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of any prepublication approval requirements.