- Messages
- 6,824
- Reactions
- 17,613
JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Washington Washington State AG Ferguson Joining the Dogpile on Defcad
- Thread Starter awshoot
- Start date
- Messages
- 12,585
- Reactions
- 28,719
SMC, Ferg, can't stop the signal...
- Messages
- 6,824
- Reactions
- 17,613
- Thread Starter
- #3
Unbelievable how many state officials are willing to jump on the bandwagon for regulating knowledge despite the fact we have a First Amendment. If they win, America will land become the land of "See Dick Run" lowest common denominator pablum --- there isn't anything that can't offend someone's sensibilities and as a lefty myself, I wish these people who pretend to be liberals would stop acting like authoritarians. I guess I need some distinguishing monicker over "lefty", but as an example, lets say someone figured out a nice safe brew-at-home tea made with readily available legal ingredients that works like the morning after pill. Certainly states like Alabama would use any precedent set here on the 3D file issue to restrain distribution of such knowledge. It's so obvious that restraints on speech turn the narrative from "is this Constitutional" to "who is in power" that I can't fathom this push. If Trump's election is any message at all to centrist Democrats, it ought to be that "you can totally lose so don't create any powers you don't want aimed at yourself."
- Messages
- 6,824
- Reactions
- 17,613
- Thread Starter
- #4
Gorram purplebellies.
- Messages
- 1,012
- Reactions
- 1,609
- Messages
- 37,252
- Reactions
- 128,531
The individual States have no legal standing on the matter. 
- Messages
- 12,585
- Reactions
- 28,719
Got a plan to beat that through F***face Ferg's thick, dense skull? The difference, like Obama and Oswald-Wannabe Mueller, between him and God is that the latter harbors no delusions of being the former...The individual States have no legal standing on the matter.
- Messages
- 3,135
- Reactions
- 7,185
And of course they have nothing better to do than to waste the taxpayers money and time instead of focusing on more pressing problems ie: homeless problem, illegal immigrants, etc.......
- Messages
- 23,293
- Reactions
- 111,609
Knowledge is power as the old saying goes....
Maybe the folks in charge don't want us to know things...?
Andy
Maybe the folks in charge don't want us to know things...?
Andy
- Messages
- 11,323
- Reactions
- 25,955
They're trying very hard to legislate us into becoming Betas and Gammas!
- Messages
- 6,824
- Reactions
- 17,613
- Thread Starter
- #11
Here's a link to Ferguson's complaint. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4622337/01-Complaint.pdf
I'm currently reading through it -- paragraph 37 on page 13 is an amazing piece of misinformation -- it's the sort of thing only a person who has zero experience with 3D printers would ever believe:
The unbolded second sentence is bunk. Anyone can sit down with a piece of CAD software and design their own stuff -- it isn't "indispensable" to have the files -- it is merely convenient. What is indispensable is the CAD software itself, but I don't see these AGs trying torpedo an entire industry over that fact.
The bolded part though is a flat out lie. Getting a successful print involves a huge number of variables and compromises and all but the smallest things take many hours. For example, I print loading blocks for the various calibers I reload - my 9mm block which is a whopping 5.8" long, 2.5" wide, and 0.5" thick, runs about 3.5 hours at a low resolution (0.25mm layer height) -- doing a high resolution job (0.1mm layer height) bumps that up to 8hrs, 21 minutes. You could make dozens out of plywood in the time it takes me to print one. And compared to a gun (which is too big to even fit on the bed of my particular printer), the loading block is a much smaller and simpler item. Dealing with layer separation, edge curl, overhang, or bed adhesion with complicated shapes is not a trivial task.
Then there is the fact that printed items have a serious structural weakness at every layer -- the layers are the weakest point and so the piece must be oriented in such a way that the layer edges receive the least amount of stress -- kind of like how it is easy to split a piece of wood into kindling by using an ax with the grain, but you aren't making any thing but chips if you chop against the grain. By the very nature of the build process, 3D parts have this issue with grain and different parts of a gun are going to need to be printed differently to avoid placing high stress on weak points. In other words, you don't just press "print" like you do with a cease and desist letter, and then pick it up from a laserjet output tray.
Whatever -- that description is the Star Trek fantasy version of what 3D printing is really like. Shocking to see it as a legal argument.
I'm currently reading through it -- paragraph 37 on page 13 is an amazing piece of misinformation -- it's the sort of thing only a person who has zero experience with 3D printers would ever believe:
The unbolded second sentence is bunk. Anyone can sit down with a piece of CAD software and design their own stuff -- it isn't "indispensable" to have the files -- it is merely convenient. What is indispensable is the CAD software itself, but I don't see these AGs trying torpedo an entire industry over that fact.
The bolded part though is a flat out lie. Getting a successful print involves a huge number of variables and compromises and all but the smallest things take many hours. For example, I print loading blocks for the various calibers I reload - my 9mm block which is a whopping 5.8" long, 2.5" wide, and 0.5" thick, runs about 3.5 hours at a low resolution (0.25mm layer height) -- doing a high resolution job (0.1mm layer height) bumps that up to 8hrs, 21 minutes. You could make dozens out of plywood in the time it takes me to print one. And compared to a gun (which is too big to even fit on the bed of my particular printer), the loading block is a much smaller and simpler item. Dealing with layer separation, edge curl, overhang, or bed adhesion with complicated shapes is not a trivial task.
Then there is the fact that printed items have a serious structural weakness at every layer -- the layers are the weakest point and so the piece must be oriented in such a way that the layer edges receive the least amount of stress -- kind of like how it is easy to split a piece of wood into kindling by using an ax with the grain, but you aren't making any thing but chips if you chop against the grain. By the very nature of the build process, 3D parts have this issue with grain and different parts of a gun are going to need to be printed differently to avoid placing high stress on weak points. In other words, you don't just press "print" like you do with a cease and desist letter, and then pick it up from a laserjet output tray.
Whatever -- that description is the Star Trek fantasy version of what 3D printing is really like. Shocking to see it as a legal argument.
- Messages
- 85
- Reactions
- 66
They don't understand that the current generation of regular 3d printers are unable durable barrels or pressure bearing assemblies. To my knowledge no one has yet to create a fully function semi-auto firearm entirely out of conventionally 3d printed parts (examples have been made on metal 3d printers that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars)...
- Messages
- 12,585
- Reactions
- 28,719
They don't CARE. Facts are irrelevant to these ulcerated, syphilitic dicks, only agenda and keeping the masses suppressed, scared out of their minds and bent over and grabbing ankles on demand.
- Messages
- 4,911
- Reactions
- 11,960
People are citing possibilities as the issue when there are actual issues to focus on. The event of being shot with a rifle is small. The event of being shot with a 3D printed rifle is even smaller.
These politicians are like my dog with a chew toy. They never think about it until their master throws it and says, go get it boy.
These politicians are like my dog with a chew toy. They never think about it until their master throws it and says, go get it boy.
- Messages
- 37,252
- Reactions
- 128,531
- Messages
- 6,824
- Reactions
- 17,613
- Thread Starter
- #17
Response briefing from Cody Wilson's attorney: Letter: Washington v. Defense Distributed (7/31/18) | Lawsuit | Settlement (Litigation)
The letter is good but be sure to scroll down to Exhibit D to get the detailed version of the defense.
The letter is good but be sure to scroll down to Exhibit D to get the detailed version of the defense.
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 6,824
- Reactions
- 17,613
- Thread Starter
- #18
It looks like Furguson's TRO was granted: Cody R. Wilson on Twitter
A little more detail, though the legal briefings posted above are the best source of info: Judge Blocks Website From Posting 3D-Printed Gun Files
A little more detail, though the legal briefings posted above are the best source of info: Judge Blocks Website From Posting 3D-Printed Gun Files
Last Edited:
- Messages
- 222
- Reactions
- 542
Chris Cox from NRA released a statement concerning that untraceable guns are illegal and have been since 1988.
The National Rifle Association had to point out Tuesday that any untraceable gun is outlawed in reference to the recent legal settlement that will allow for the blueprints on how to print and set up a gun from a 3D printer to be available to the public.
The National Rifle Association had to point out Tuesday that any untraceable gun is outlawed in reference to the recent legal settlement that will allow for the blueprints on how to print and set up a gun from a 3D printer to be available to the public.
- Messages
- 6,824
- Reactions
- 17,613
- Thread Starter
- #20
To be perfectly clear, Defense Distributed is not selling, giving away, loaning, or distributing any guns at all. That's the media narrative (and a message Cody likes to use to troll the media with). Rather, DD is releasing data, the modern equivalent to printed instructional books or schematic drawings, things clearly protected by the 1A (how else could there be gunsmithing schools if not for such protected speech).
So in that context, I'm not 100% clear about the the meaning or intent of the NRA's statement above especially when taken in conjunction with Trump's tweet on the issue today:
So in that context, I'm not 100% clear about the the meaning or intent of the NRA's statement above especially when taken in conjunction with Trump's tweet on the issue today:
Similar threads
