Or, as the truth-challenged victim disarmers put it:
Brady Center Files Amicus Brief Over 3D Printed Guns
The government’s attempt to keep 3D printed guns out of the hands of terrorists got a boost Thursday with an amicus brief filed in support in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
That purports to be a Courthouse News article, but it appears from the text (including a “mission statement” for the BCPGV at the bottom) to be a press release. Let’s look it over.
- “The U.S. Department of State ordered Texas-bases Defense Distributed to remove from the Internet what was essentially a do-it-yourself kit for making untraceable and undetectable guns.”
Nope. It was electronic data files. No tools, no materials.
- “The kit included blueprints for 3D printed guns that could easily be carried through security checkpoints and used to wreck havoc.”
I might allow that one if by “security” they mean the TSA. But to date, there are no really concealable 3D printed firearms (unless you count those AR lowers, which require a great many other parts to function). Most are large, bulky. They require metallic firing pins and barrels, and often metallic springs. Current US law alrready requires a minimum amount of detectable metal, and the DD plans incorporate that.
- “What happens when these new, untraceable and undetectable guns wind up in the wrong hands, or easily slip through metal detectors at airports?”
If they slip through metal detectors, it isn’t the fault of the metal-bearing gun, but of the sloppy security workers.
- “Brady’s brief argues the Second Amendment does not give the right to make and publish plans for 3D printed guns”
Technically true. For one, the 2A doesn’t give any rights, but protects a preexisting right. For another, it’s the First Amendment that protects the speech expressed in those data files.
- “This case shows just how far the corporate gun lobby will go – fighting for a supposed right to export blueprints”
Now that’s funny. Here’s a group working on the development of 3D printing technology that would allow individuals to make their firearms without having to get them from gun corporations. Eventually.
- “undetectable plastic gun”
Except for all those metallic parts required for function and by law.
- “[T]he United States has the right to regulate the export of firearms, and that Defense Distributed’s attempt to give detailed plan to print guns to anyone with an internet connection amounts to international firearms exportation.”
Yeah. Well, we saw how well that worked for encryption in the Crypto Wars. Now, if they’re claiming that these bulky, short-lived firearms are specifically designed for and used by the military, I wish they’d point to the units deploying with Shuttys and DD semiauto lowers.
- “The mission of the Brady Center is to drastically cut the number of annual deaths from gun violence.”
Then they should get out of the rights-violation business and get trained as mental health counselors, since two-thirds of those gun deaths are suicides.
I have a sneaking suspicion that this amicus brief is more of a fund-raising appeal to cover the expenses incurred for wrongfully suing Badger Guns and Badger Outdoors.
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first on TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!