Popular Mechanics has published a good primer on the fundamentals of the Defense Distributed case at the Department of Justice and the Department of State.
A legal agreement between the U.S. government and a gun rights organization is setting the stage for the latest skirmish in the wars over gun rights and gun control. The agreement allows the group Defense Distributed to host a collection of files online that can be downloaded and, with the help of a 3D printer, can print the necessary parts to build working firearms.
Numerous states are now rushing to ban their residents from downloading the files. Even the President of the United States weighed in. But the truth here is a little murkier than the headlines.
What a Gun Is
Here’s the first thing you need to know: These files are the instructions sets for 3D printing items that are legally considered firearms. But in reality, what they add up to falls far short of an actual, workable gun.
and this,
The First Amendment vs. the Second
The U.S. government recognizes the right of citizens to build their own firearms, and all of these parts are readily available in gun shops or online, as they always have been. So all of this is perfectly legal. Where Defense Distributed and the government clashed is over the ability of people in foreign countries to download the files.
For example, the government’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) statute prohibits the transfer of weapons technology abroad without express permission. Hosting the files online allows anyone around the world to download them—a no-no under ITAR.
The Truth About Guns site has a column up explaining the legal and political obstacles overcome and those still to be faced.
According to the press release from the Second Amendment Foundation, the “government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber – including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms – are not inherently military.”
This sounds great, but the devil is in the details of the new rule.
First, this settlement agreement is not the same as the final regulation. The settlement may be helpful in another, future lawsuit, but this settlement cannot bind the outcome of the final regulation. Furthermore, the final regulation may not even mention the settlement’s definition of “Military Equipment.” It is important that the State Department cement this distinction in a binding government document, like the pending new rule.
Second, the State Department only promised a process to address the regulation. That process may be favorable to gun owners or it may be so narrow as to barely affect our purchase and ownership of firearms and the designs to make them.
The State Department will first publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that will detail the potential new regulation exempting certain firearm designs intended for sharing. The NPRM will also detail the time period for the public to submit comments on the proposal in support or opposition.
This is a critical phase of the notice-and-comment process. After the comment period, the State Department may receive so much negative feedback on its proposal that it determines it should craft something much more restrictive of gun rights.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.