DOJ, Second Amendment Foundation Reach Settlement In Defense Distributed Lawsuit

In both a First and Second Amendment win, the Second Amendment Foundation has settled with the Department of State after suing on behalf of Defense Distributed.

Defense Distributed was in trouble for distributing plans for a 3d printable Liberator single shot pistol, with the Department of State claiming violation of ITAR.

From the SAF's press release:

"Under terms of the settlement, the government has agreed to waive its prior restraint against the plaintiffs, allowing them to freely publish the 3-D files and other information at issue. The government has also agreed to pay a significant portion of the plaintiffs' attorney's fees, and to return $10,000 in State Department registration dues paid by Defense Distributed as a result of the prior restraint.

Significantly, 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."

You are being redirected...

Saw this earlier. Good deal!!

BTW, the link doesn't seem to work so here - https://www.saf.org/doj-saf-reach-settlement-in-defense-distributed-lawsuit/

The one aspect I'd like some more insight on is what, exactly, the government is "expressly acknowledging" and whether that acknowledgement impacts any agency other than DOJ and ATF. For example, could this determination be used to make a dent in the idiot policies put in place by states like Maryland?

Lutherf said:

Saw this earlier. Good deal!!

BTW, the link doesn't seem to work so here - https://www.saf.org/doj-saf-reach-settlement-in-defense-distributed-lawsuit/

The one aspect I'd like some more insight on is what, exactly, the government is "expressly acknowledging" and whether that acknowledgement impacts any agency other than DOJ and ATF. For example, could this determination be used to make a dent in the idiot policies put in place by states like Maryland?

Click to expand...

IANAL, but as far as I can tell that claim is based on the transfer of jurisdiction from State to Commerce Department. It's hard to determine if it will have an impact on state AWBs as the 7th Circuit Court ruled that if a ban reduced the perception of risk of an mass shooting and made people feel safer as a result, then that's sufficient support for the ban.

Rucker61 said:

the 7th Circuit Court ruled that if a ban reduced the perception of risk of an mass shooting and made people feel safer as a result, then that's sufficient support for the ban.

Click to expand...

Thankfully, we're far more likely now to revisit such bald-faced nonsense at the top level.