US debates 3-D guns, judge blocks blueprint uploads
Made mostly of plastic, 3D printable guns, including military-style assault rifles used in many mass shootings, can be just as lethal. But unlike the metal guns, they are undetectable, without serial numbers, and can be owned without going through a background check of some sort.
A US federal judge has temporarily blocked a Texas non-profit from uploading blueprints for making 3D printable guns that are easy to make, own and destroy.
But the debate will continue, as everything about guns.
Made mostly of plastic, 3D printable guns, including military-style assault rifles used in many mass shootings, can be just as lethal. But unlike the metal guns, they are undetectable, without serial numbers, and can be owned without going through a background check of some sort.
The Texas non-profit, Defense Distributed, recently began uploading the blueprints after settling a legal dispute with the federal government. Thousands of designs had been downloaded before a judge in Seattle blocked it on Tuesday in response to a lawsuit jointly filed by multiple states a day earlier.
The court order came hours after President Donald Trump jumped into the debate, tweeting on Tuesday morning: “I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn’t seem to make much sense!”
The National Rifle Association (NRA), which spearheads the powerful US gun lobby — has come out in opposition.
“Regardless of what a person may be able to publish on the Internet, undetectable plastic guns have been illegal for 30 years. Federal law passed in 1988, crafted with the NRA’s support, makes it unlawful to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive an undetectable firearm,” Chris W Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement.
It’s the Trump administration that has brought on this situation.
Cody Wilson, the man behind Defense Distributed, began uploading the blueprints in 2013. But he was quickly blocked by the state department, which took it as an issue of exporting arms without permission. Wilson sued and won a settlement in June.
The state department has said it decided to settle the case on the advice of the justice department, which argued the government would lose this case as it was about the First Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of speech.
Wilson has argued his case was not about guns or the right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. He said it was about access to information.
His attorney Josh Blackman, an attorney who represents Cody Wilson, has been clearer. He said the Seattle court’s restraining order violates First Amendment rights: “We were disappointed in the ruling and view it as a massive prior restraint of free speech.”
