A lawsuit against the federal government alleges its restrictions on posting on the Internet plans for a 3D printer to make a firearm violates the First Amendment and other provisions of the Constitution.

The case has been filed in the U.S. District Court in Austin, Texas, on behalf of Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation. It names the Department of State, John Kerry and additional federal officials as defendants.

Cody Wilson, whose “Liberator” handgun reportedly was the first pistol intended to be built using only a 3D printer, had posted the plans on the Web in 2013.

But the federal government immediately contacted him and told him the outline for using about a dozen plastic parts and a metal piece for a firing pin violated the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

That’s a program that demands government approval for “export” of certain “technical” information.

Read all about “The Future of the Gun,” in Frank Miniter’s new much-needed book about developing technology for self-defense, and how the government wants to stop it.

Dave Workman, a spokesman for SAF, told WND the government won’t be able to stop technology, and the real problem is not any individual weapon but irresponsible people.

After all, he pointed out, Henry Ford would not be held liable for building automobiles if someone gets drunk, drives and causes an accident.

The complaint alleges: “Posting technical data on the Internet is perhaps the most common and effective means of creating and disseminating information. A cursory search on Google and other Internet search engines evidences that ITAR technical data is freely published in books, scientific journals and on the Internet.

“Plaintiff Defense Distributed publishes files on the Internet as a means of fulfilling its primary missions to promote the right to keep and bear arms and to educate the public, and also to generate revenue with which to sustain itself,” the pleading states.

It says “privately generated technical information regarding a number of gun-related items, including a trigger guard, grips, two receivers, a magazine for AR-15 rifles and a handgun.”

The company did not know the government would censor its Internet speech and “continues to believe that the United States Constitution guarantees a right to share truthful speech – especially speech concerning fundamental constitutional rights – in open forums.”

On the directions of the government, the company then “requested” permission for the publication, but nearly two years have passed and “defendants have still not responded.”

The company’s printing machine, which “can be used to manufacture a variety of items, including gun parts,” meanwhile, was refused review because the government “was unsure whether the Ghost Gunner was subject to the ITAR.”

But the government actions, the claim suggests, are “an unconstitutional prior restraint on protected expression.”

“Defendants’ prepublication approval requirement is invalid on its face, and as applied to plaintiffs’ speech, is overly broad, inherently vague, ambiguous and lacking adequate procedural protections,” the case explains.

That’s the First Amendment, it said.

And the government is violating the Second Amendment because, if “one cannot acquire or create arms, one cannot exercise Second Amendment rights. Infringing upon the creation and acquisition of arms of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes violates the Second Amendment.”

Workman told WND the information exists, and people will obtain it, sometimes even if the government tries to stop it.

Attorney Josh Blackman, representing Wilson, told Fox News the government “should tread carefully” when it restricts technology.

He pointed out, however, the panic that the idea of 3D-printed guns had caused in Washington.

“We’re facing a situation where anyone – a felon, a terrorist – can open a gun factory in their garage and the weapons they make will be undetectable. It’s stomach-churning,” claimed Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Blackman told Fox that’s overstated.

“A working gun does not pop out of the 3D printer ready to fire, like a pop-tart from the toaster,” he said. “Using a 3D printer to create the parts, and assemble them, is a time-intensive process that requires advanced knowledge of machining and gunsmithing.”

John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, said on Fox that the government simply can’t ban guns, nor could it prevent people from buying a printer.

He said it would be a “futile effort.”

“I understand [that] government wants to regulate this, but it is too late. Technology moves faster than government,” he said.

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/battle-erupts-over-censorship-of-3d-printer-gun-plans/