If the "law" in question is that the export of a 3D printed design is an ITAR violation, then that's what the discussion (in the courts) should be about. Having said that, it is my limited understanding that the judge in the case was more worried about its use inside the US. To me, that seems like a stretch. You should not read my personal position on whether this is a good idea into this comment; I just wish people would argue about controversial issues honestly rather than, as an example, using an ITAR restriction to control distribution within the US. This is far from the only issue where people argue their position based on one set of facts when their real concern is something quite different.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:22 PM justsumname <unixday...@gmail.com> wrote: > In response to OP: > “....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.” > > In response to my Nanny State comment: I am offended by victimless > felonies. They trigger me. And when I think about them, I feel > micro-aggressed. > > My understanding is that there is NO "plastic gun" even in question. > Even a 3-D printed 'firearm' will not function without a few metal parts, > such as, a chamber. Or maybe perhaps a trigger spring. Or a barrel. > > Ya know, if you make a gun wrongly, you might discover how to make a > bomb. And that's illegal already, too. > > --Damn It > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
