> Taliban Immediately Moves To Confiscate Firearms From Civilians

Democrats Immediately Move To Ban Sharing 3D-Printed Gun Blueprints Online

Massive Onslaught against Freedom Of Speech, Computer Code,
Crypto[currency], 2ndA, Distributed Networks and Filesharing, etc.

Seems just the way these retards want to have it.

Remember kids, Freedom comes for free with Menendez Mags!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7gvBtpg1tg


Democrat Bill Would Ban 3D Printing Firearm Schematics

https://www.theepochtimes.com/democratic-bill-would-ban-3d-printing-firearm-schematics_3961424.html
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/3DGuns-PInj.pdf
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/GhostGuns-9CA.pdf
https://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senators-markey-and-menendez-and-rep-deutch-reintroduce-ban-on-3d-printed-guns

Sen. Ed Markey’s (D-Mass.) little-known 3D Printed Gun Safety Act (S.
2319) would criminalize sharing firearm schematics for 3D printers
online.

3D printing describes a process that allows people to “print” 3D
models for various items. These models range from small tools, art
projects, and shapes up to functional firearms. Critics of the
practice have called these 3D-printed firearms “ghost guns” because
they lack serial numbers and are difficult for law enforcement to
trace.

Despite their relative novelty, 3D-printed firearms have a rich legal history.

In 2018, Congress passed the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), a
foreign policy bill designed to restrict enemies’ access to U.S.-made
munitions.

In March 2020, 22 states argued that 3D firearm schematics violated
ECRA because they were accessible to foreign enemies. They brought
suit against Defense Distributed (D.D.), a firm that provided
schematics for 3D firearms. The plaintiffs argued that these
schematics would cause them “irreparable injury.” Seattle District
Judge Robert Lasnik agreed and issued an injunction against D.D.
(pdf).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case again this year on
Apr. 27. The panel concluded in a split decision that courts had no
say in the matter, asserting that “Congress expressly precluded
judicial review … here,” and overturned the injunction against D.D.
(pdf).

After this decision, the Justice Department proposed new regulations
on 3D-printed guns. First, retailers would be required to run a
background check on customers before selling kits containing necessary
materials to print a firearm. Second, kits would be required to
include a serial number on the frame or the receiver to make them more
traceable. Finally, firearms dealers would be mandated to add a serial
number to any guns they bought that did not have one.

Markey’s S.2319 would concretize federal rules against the
distribution of 3D gun files. The bill alleges that these schematics
“increase the risk that … felons, domestic abusers, and other people
prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal law, will obtain a
firearm through 3D printing.” Because these 3D guns are not traceable,
S.2319 says, they are appealing to criminals.

S.2319 goes on to warn that such schematics “threaten to undermine the
entire Federal firearms regulatory scheme and to endanger public
safety and national security.” To address this alleged risk, the bill
would make it “unlawful for any person to intentionally distribute …
code that can automatically program a 3-dimensional printer or similar
device to produce a firearm or complete a firearm from an unfinished
frame or receiver.”

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) joined Markey in introducing the bill in
the Senate. In a press release, Markey said of the bill:

    “With no background check required, untraceable and undetectable
3D printed guns serve as the ultimate gun-acquisition loophole. With
the click of a mouse, anyone can download a computer file and use a 3D
printer to manufacture a semi-automatic weapon. We cannot allow the
online availability of downloadable firearms to add fuel to the fire
that already is a massive gun violence public safety crisis.”

Menendez expressed the same concerns, saying: “With the click of a
mouse, anyone with an internet connection and a 3D printer essentially
has a license to print, shoot and kill. Undetectable and untraceable
3D-printed guns allow criminals to circumvent law enforcement and
commit crimes. That’s why we must close the ‘3D Gun Loophole’ that
allows dangerous individuals to exploit gaps in existing law to
manufacture firearms at home they cannot otherwise legally obtain.”

s.2319 currently has 27 Democrat co-sponsors in the Senate. As of
Monday, it remains in the Judiciary Committee. Still, with so many
sponsors in the Senate, it is possible that Democrats may try to move
the little-known bill out of committee for floor debate at some point.
Even with the numerical Democratic majority, it would face a tough
battle. Earlier this year, moderate Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) said
that he opposed Democratic gun control legislation in the House. If
Manchin were to defect and join Republicans, then the bill would not
pass without a Republican taking Manchin’s place and joining
Democrats.

However, passing Congress would only be the first step for S.2319.
Afterward, it would doubtless face legal challenges from D.D. and gun
rights advocacy groups like Gun Owners of America.

In an interview with The Epoch Times, a spokesman for the Libertarian
Party criticized the bill as impractical. He asked, “How would [the
government] even enforce this law?” Later, he answered his own
question, saying that “It would require Soviet- and CCP- levels of
control [over citizens’ lives].” He also referenced litigation
revolving around the issue of 3D schematics and doubted in the wake of
this litigation that the bill could survive the courts. He referenced
several cases and government settlements revolving around the issue.

In August 2017, D.D. sued the State Department and asked the U.S.
Supreme Court to hear their case against it. D.D. claimed that the
State Department barring their right to distribute 3D schematics
online constituted a violation of the First Amendment. Though the
Supreme Court declined to hear the case, the State Department
eventually reached a settlement with D.D. that gave the firm a license
to publish the schematics and a cash payment of $40,000. Heather
Nauert, a spokesman for the State Department, said in a press
conference that the agency agreed to this decision because “We were
informed that we … have likely lost this case in court … on First
Amendment grounds.”

In 1996, the Ninth Circuit Appellate Court ruled that source code was
protected under the First Amendment (Bernstein v. U.S.). Because
schematics like those provided by D.D. are a type of source code,
standing U.S. law would prohibit restrictions like those found in
S.2319.

Thus, the law would raise criticisms as a violation of the First
Amendment. And indeed, the law’s authors had a preconception of this
risk. The final clause in Sec. 3 of the bill says that “by making
illegal the distribution of certain computer code that can be used …
[to] create firearms … Congress seeks not to regulate the rights of
computer programmers under the First Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States, but rather to curb the pernicious effects of
untraceable … firearms.”

Though the Supreme Court has refused to take the case in the past,
it’s almost inevitable that S.2319 would go before the highest court
if this legislation were passed. The result would be a huge landmark
for gun control advocates if the Supreme Court upheld the law and a
huge landmark for gun rights groups if the law were struck down.
Either way, the legislation will have long-lasting national
consequences if it is passed by Congress and signed into law.