DOJ Settles with Cody Wilson. Downloadable/Printable Gun CAD OK.

[RoyGBiv]

DOJ Settles In Landmark Gun Suit, Safeguarding The Second Amendment (https://www.dailywire.com/news/32872/doj-settles-landmark-gun-suit-safeguarding-second-amanda-prestigiacomo)


Moreover, in the settlement, "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," notes a press release from the Second Amendment Foundation. In other words, the handful of liberal states that currently ban "assault weapons" like the AR-15, such as New York state via the SAFE Act, could potentially face legal challenges.

More from Volkh

US government drops prohibition on files for 3D printed arms (https://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/10/us-government-drops-prohibition-on-files)

[jellydonut]

While a foregone conclusion as soon as small arms were removed from ITAR, this is still fantastic news.

[Chance]

I have apparently been in a cave: when were small arms removed from ITAR?

[HCM]

I have apparently been in a cave: when were small arms removed from ITAR?

They weren't. They re-interpreted ITAR and relaxed some of the rules to exclude manually operated and semi auto firearms under .50 caliber - basically regular non NFA firearms.

Actual small arms i.e. anything select or automatic fire, suppressors, night vision etc all remain ITAR regulated.

[jellydonut]

I have apparently been in a cave: when were small arms removed from ITAR?

Apparently my terminology was not precise enough for some people.

CIVILIAN SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS, then. And they have not been removed yet, the regulatory change will only enter into force some time early next year or around there. The justice department is just getting ahead of the change by settling this case.

[RevolverRob]

While I do think Mr. Wilson is a bit fringe and definitely has a flair for the dramatic, I sincerely applaud and support his efforts. He has willingly, put his ass on the line, to do what he thought was right. And to a degree, has shown the world that he was right and defended our freedoms. That's very laudable, even if you disagree with his way of delivering the message.

What's deeply disturbing in the middle of the article was this gem,
For example, the liberal pinnacle of gun control, Australia, began preemptively cracking down on gun files in 2015. An Australian in possession of such a file could face up to 14 years behind bars.

Did they ban books in Australia too? Can you be arrested if you have a copy of Che Guevara's field manual on guerilla warfare? What about a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook? Can you be convicted for watching Youtube Videos? What if you watch a documentary that shows how cannons were constructed?!

What fucking stupidity.

[Jay585]

"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"

It's quite likely I misinterpreted this (I'm tired and not book smart) but does that mean by saying that there's a possibility of a United States v. Miller-type situation?

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

[RevolverRob]

"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"

It's quite likely I misinterpreted this (I'm tired and not book smart) but does that mean by saying that there's a possibility of a United States v. Miller-type situation?

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

I believe in this instance, what they are arguing is that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber which are not inherently military in nature, cannot be restricted via the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). The crux of the lawsuit between Wilson and DOJ was that DOJ argued that digital files which could be used to construct firearms were regulated via ITAR. The reversal here, is that because said digital files are for the production of non-military weapons, they are not subject to ITAR. I could be wrong, but that's my reading. Most often when ITAR is invoked, it is technology that is "military-grade" and therefore could provide an advantage to our enemies.

If my reading is correct - in theory the DOJ could push DOD to download the files, print the devices out, and issue them DODICs with some vague stipulation like, "Prototypes of sterile weapon(s) for covert warfare" and then argue that the files are now protected by ITAR, because they are used to produce objects that are military in nature. That'd be bullshit, but I suspect it could be done. Depends on the nature of the DOJ settlement with Mr. Wilson, to be honest.

[rcbusmc24]

I'm still partially convinced that if Miller had been anyone other than who he is and that if his lawyer had actually shown up for court that this decision would not have gone the way that it did, of course I'm not anything even remotely resembling a lawyer soo....

"Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'" Judge Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.

In reality, Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.

On March 30, 1939, the Supreme Court heard the case. Attorneys for the United States argued four points:
1.The NFA is intended as a revenue-collecting measure and therefore within the authority of the Department of the Treasury.
2.The defendants transported the shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas, and therefore used it in interstate commerce.
3.The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
4.The "double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length, bearing identification number 76230" was never used in any militia organization.

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling. Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered."

IMO the governments argument was pretty weak and the only way it stood is that there was no counter argument presented.

[HCM]

Apparently my terminology was not precise enough for some people.

CIVILIAN SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS, then. And they have not been removed yet, the regulatory change will only enter into force some time early next year or around there. The justice department is just getting ahead of the change by settling this case.

Words have specific meanings in a legal context. The reason the captioned firearms were removed from ITAR is it was determined they were not “inherently military.” Whereas “small arms” are inherently military.

This implications beyond ITAR as one could argue it helps set precedent that such weapons are in “common use” as referenced in DCvs Heller.