14th Most Dangerous Man In The World

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,236
287
near Seattle, Wa
Meet the new boss, hell of a lot better looking than the old boss.
Ah, Saul Cornell. 

HELLER, NEW ORIGINALISM, AND LAW OFFICE HISTORY: “MEET THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS” * Saul Cornell


Originalism on Trial: The Use and Abuse of History in District of Columbia v. Heller SAUL CORNELL*
III. ORIGINALISM V. HISTORY

The goals of the historian and judge are different. It is not reasonable to expect judges and their clerks to produce professional quality history in their opinions.60 It is not unreasonable, however, to demand that judges not play fast and loose with history. The choice is not between law-office history and professional history, but rather between history wrong or history right. 61 Thus, if one claims to be employing originalism, one ought to pay more attention to the Founding-Era's own interpretive practices and less to modem language philosophy. One must apply the Founders' interpretive rules uniformly.62

CORNELL'S OVERALL CONCLUSION : the MacDonald decision was mistaken, historically.

The pro-gun rights version of American constitutional history is resolutely ahistorical. Rather than try to understand what the Second Amendment meant to Americans in the past, it tries to make historical texts choose sides in contemporary debates over gun control.

The great difficulty in interpreting the meaning of the right to bear arms is not that technology has changed, but rather that the political and constitutional assumptions at the root of the Second Amendment have changed. Justice Scalia and gun rights advocates believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right that facilitates the possibility of a well-regulated militia.

The Founders and many Americans during the era of the Fourteenth Amendment saw it in reverse. To have a well regulated militia, it was necessary to have a population that was well armed, well trained, and most importantly, well regulated. The Founders understood the difference between an armed mob and a well-regulated militia, and this distinction remained important during Reconstruction, when paramilitary groups such as the KKK embarked on a campaign of terror throughout much of the Reconstructed South.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,577
1,736
Punta Gorda FL
Homebrew Guns Around The World

3D printing them isn't really common as yet because normal tools are still cheaper and better, or at least available at all.

This finding was interesting:

Improvised and craft-produced small arms account for a sizable proportion of weapons seized in domestic law enforcement operations in several countries. In the UK, some 80 per cent of all guns used in crime in 2011 and 2012 were improvised, craft-produced, or converted...
80%?

Anyone with the skill and motivation to create a gun should get a job and quit being a criminal.

 

BeSafe

Super Anarchist
7,920
1,236
I just spent 20 minutes looking for the support of the claim " In the UK, some 80 per cent of all guns used in crime in 2011 and 2012 were improvised, craft-produced, or converted"

I followed the paper's references and looked for other sources but I'm having a really hard time finding how they derived that number.  I was particularly curious if this included things like the reconstituted 1911 style guns that are common in the American southwest - which I could definitely imagine being true and being a significant fraction of crime.  But I can imagine all kinds of silliness so I'd actually like to know ;)

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,577
1,736
Punta Gorda FL
It seems like a high percentage.

Meanwhile, the proposed 3D Firearms Prohibition Act

Prohibits a heck of a lot more than just 3D guns and $peaking about them. They want to ban 80% lowers and "assault weapon parts kits" which would, presumably, include the "parts kit" that converted my wife's gun into an assault weapon.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,577
1,736
Punta Gorda FL
New Jersey Sued Over Censorship
 

A new New Jersey statute (enacted by SB2465) bans


distribut[ing] by any means, including the Internet, to a person in New Jersey who is not registered or licensed as a [gun] manufacturer ..., digital instructions in the form of computer-aided design files or other code or instructions stored and displayed in electronic format as a digital model that may be used to program a three-dimensional printer to manufacture or produce a firearm, firearm receiver, magazine, or firearm component.



Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation, represented by Chad Flores (Beck Redden LLP), Matthew Goldstein (Farhang & Medcoff), and Prof. Josh Blackman (South Texas College of Law), have just filed a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to block enforcement of the law.
You can't even have digital files saying how to make any component of a firearm, let alone a functional gun.
Coming next week to a federal court in Texas
 

Their argument is based on the principle that computer code counts as speech protected by the First Amendment. As the suit says, "New Jersey's law obviously imposes content-based speech restrictions, in that its penalties apply only to speech with this content: 'digital instructions' that 'may be used to program a three-dimensional printer to manufacture or produce a firearm, firearm receiver, magazine, or firearm component.'"

In addition, "the statute covers not just actual distribution of the 'instructions' at issue, but also an 'advertise[ment]' of instructions or an 'offer' of instructions. But of course, if no actual delivery of the instructions occurs, none of the state interests that could possibly justify the statute come into play."
Those seem like valid arguments to me.

In addition to the speech claims, the suit further insists New Jersey's law violates the commerce clause as that clause "does not allow a state to 'regulate conduct that takes place exclusively outside the state.'" Defense Distributed further argues that the law violates the Supremacy Clause by attempting to outlaw certain acts legal under the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 and to override a federal decision to license Defense Distributed to distribute computer files that can facilitate gunmaking.
Not so sure about those two, but the first one is at least guaranteed to generate an interesting dissent from Thomas, if the case is heard.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,577
1,736
Punta Gorda FL
One of my favorite quotes, the source for which I can't remember, about the early internet was that it was designed to be Russia-proof and this design made it delightfully regulator-proof.

Yes, Chris, they're here to stay
 

I didn't hear about the doctor's book but am glad French people are Uncooperative with censors too..
New Jersey sent a censorship demand to codeisfreespeech.com so the site is down while the first amendment lawsuit proceeds.
 

The new state law—which Grewal hailed as a win for "public safety"—carves out a First Amendment exception relating to information about firearm manufacturing. It's now a crime for "a person to distribute by any means, including the Internet... digital instructions in the form of computer-aided design files or other code or instructions... that may be used to program a three-dimensional printer to manufacture or produce a firearm, firearm receiver, magazine, or firearm component."

This is a remarkably broad prohibition: it goes beyond banning the manufacturing of firearms and instead criminalizes information about how to manufacture firearms. And it's backed by criminal sanctions including fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years.
It is remarkably broad censorship but respect for the first amendment goes right out the window when people are scared and gun owners are SCARY! Many don't vote correctly!

 

A guy in the Chesapeake

Super Anarchist
23,965
1,167
Virginia

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,577
1,736
Punta Gorda FL
I sincerely doubt this one holds up to even a circuit appeals court review.  I hope not at least. 
I'd like to doubt it, but we saw a case make it to the Supreme Court about whether the Bill of Rights (umm, a bad part of it) covers technology developed since 1789. Really? Would that kind of question be tolerated with respect to any other amendment?

Currently, I'm still predicting the whole room laughs at the government's position when SCOTUS oral arguments happen on the stupid NY gun laws.

The Cert Petition
 

The question presented is:

Whether the City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
Not presented to the court, but still worth wondering about: why are hoplophobes so darn fearful that they can't tolerate a licensed, locked, and unloaded gun being carried outside city limits?
Given those examples that made it all the way to SCOTUS, do you really think a censorship law is more ridiculous?
Personally, I think the stun gun case was more ridiculous.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,577
1,736
Punta Gorda FL
yhDZgsJ.jpg


Meet the new boss, hell of a lot better looking than the old boss.


Articulate and delightfully contumacious too.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,577
1,736
Punta Gorda FL
New Jersey sent a censorship demand to codeisfreespeech.com so the site is down while the first amendment lawsuit proceeds.
 

It is remarkably broad censorship but respect for the first amendment goes right out the window when people are scared and gun owners are SCARY! Many don't vote correctly!
I sincerely doubt this one holds up to even a circuit appeals court review.  I hope not at least. 
It may get nowhere for a surprising reason:

New Jersey Never Sent That Takedown Letter

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,577
1,736
Punta Gorda FL
The cluelessness of grabbers continues to astound me

They think 3D printed guns are easy to make, attractive to terrorists, and can be censored.

The reality, of course, is that they're hard to make, crappy when completed, virtually useless to terrorists, and can't be censored.
 

...

“Should The Anarchist Cookbook be banned”? I asked Linsky. It contains deadly recipes.

“There’s no reason to ban books,” he replied. “The genie is out of the bottle a long, long time ago on The Anarchist Cookbook. But this is a very different thing whereby all you have to do is download a file, press a button and a printer gives you a gun.”

It’s actually not that easy.

U.S. Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) made it sound as if anyone could make a 3D gun. “Bad people can go to Instagram and get an insta-gun!”

But that’s silly, like so much of what Markey says.

“It’s actually a very complicated process,” explains Blackman. You need technological expertise and very specific materials. “It might take a full day of printing. You have to treat the plastic with chemicals so that they’re strong enough. Even then, odds are, the gun’s pretty crappy.”

True. When my TV show tried one, it wouldn’t fire.

But the technology will improve.

It’s said that 3D guns will be “a windfall for terrorists.”

“Terrorists have access to far more dangerous weapons,” responds Blackman. “The notion that ISIS is…making these stupid little plastic guns that can fire one shot at a time strains credulity.”

...

Although Defense Distributed withdrew its blueprints, it continues to fight for the right to publish them online.

Seems kind of like a pointless fight to me, because in the short time before Defense Distributed withdrew its post, hundreds of other websites had copied it. They still host the blueprints.

Linsky hadn’t realized that. When I showed some to him, he said, “I understand that some people might think that the genie is out of the bottle, but let’s put as much of that genie back into the bottle as we possibly can.”

But we can’t put the genies back. Today, once information is out, it’s out there forever. No government can pull it back.

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,577
1,736
Punta Gorda FL
Raz'r said:
Uncooperative Tom said:
How did you get so wrong as to support the #14 wanted guy?
What did I get wrong and what are you saying I support? C'mon, spell it out. Don't just insinuate.
.

Given the only thing that will get you permabanned is accusing a member of being a pedophile, I'm not sure what you mean. 
Still not sure what you were insinuating there. Want to spell it out?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,577
1,736
Punta Gorda FL
"ATF spokeswoman Ginger Colbrun said in a written statement that authorities were anonymously tipped off that someone was "conducting illegal firearms transaction outside the scope of the federal firearm license that the individual possess." Along with the weapons, firearm manufacturing equipment and tools were also found at the home."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/08/us/massive-seizure-of-guns-la-trnd/index.html
I wonder if that means weapons manufacturing equipment like 3D printers and computers?

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,577
1,736
Punta Gorda FL
Twitter Heeds Senator Menedez's Censorship Call

Maybe.
 

The user behind that account has been using another account on Twitter since, @det_disp (Deterrence Dispensed). Today, Sean Campbell at The Trace reports that he obtained a copy of a communication from Twitter to Sen. Menendez in which the company claims that it has a longstanding policy of prohibiting "the promotion of weapons and weapons accessories globally," but that the reason they suspended @ivanthetroll12 was because he "is in violation of our policy of evading an account suspension."

While the man behind the account is admittedly doing that very thing now with his new account, he insists in an email today that the original account was the very first one he ever created, and Twitter indeed provides no proof that he violated any policy of evading an account suspension at the time they suspended @ivanthetroll12.

Their statement to Sen. Menendez about their policy regarding "promotion of weapons" is, as The Trace points out, about a "policy [that] only applies to 'Twitter's paid advertising products,' not general users."

This led the man behind the accounts to tweet today that "in that [Trace] article, you'll find that Twitter gave Menendez one reason (ban evasion) but gave Sean another (illegal content). Even Twitter can't get their story straight. THEY ARE MAKING UP REASONS TO BAN PEOPLE AS THEY GO ALONG."

The Trace's Campbell reported that a Twitter spokesperson told him the account was suspended, not for the reason the company told Sen. Menendez, but because "Accounts sharing 3D-printed gun designs are in violation of the Twitter Rules' unlawful use policy." The company has the stated rule that "You may not use our service for any unlawful purposes or in furtherance of illegal activities."

Whether the spreading of such files is, in fact, illegal anywhere but in New Jersey and California, which Campbell points out are the only states with laws prohibiting either the files specifically or the "distribution of guns and gun designs that lack serial numbers and are therefore untraceable by law enforcement," and whether those laws will eventually pass constitutional muster, remains to be seen.
For whatever reason, I haven't been banned for this:


 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
61,577
1,736
Punta Gorda FL
Pretty Good Privacy Gets Pretty Legal

I haven't heard the name "cypherpunks" in many years. I first noticed PGP about the time of versions 2.5-2.6, by which time Mr. Bidzos' patent became irrelevant.

Before he released PGP, Zimmermann asked Bidzos for a free license for the patents. Bidzos refused, noting that he had already sold licenses to third parties and didn't want to undercut their business. Zimmermann says that he released PGP because the US Senate's 1991 omnibus crime bill had a measure buried within it that would have directed manufacturers of secure communications equipment to insert "trapdoors" into their products so that messages could be decrypted by the government. Releasing PGP, Zimmermann claims, was a preemptive strike against such an Orwellian future. (Zimmermann has since become the subject of a criminal investigation focusing on PGP's export overseas.)

...

Back in the United States, cryptography had gone from an esoteric branch of mathematics to front-page news. At the center of the controversy is the Clipper Chip, a key escrow-based encryption system that nearly became the government-approved standard for a wiretap-ready infobahn. "If we wake up one morning with 100 million Clipper phones, it doesn't matter what the laws are," says Zimmermann. Such a vision caused Zimmermann to increase his efforts to make PGP available to anyone who wanted it, particularly in the US. If only the RSA patent weren't in the way!

...

"Finally we have been able to bring to the public a noncommercial version of PGP that really does not have any sword of Damocles hanging over its head - or over the head of its users," said Schiller. "Anybody in the US can get a copy of this, and RSA is not going to object."

Despite munitions export laws, PGP version 2.6 quickly made its way to Europe via the Net. Zimmermann sees the spread of PGP as a symbol of people's determination to defend their right to privacy. The solution, he claims, isn't fighting whatever key escrow encryption system eventually replaces Clipper as the government standard, but making something better. And, he adds, PGP is it.
What a different world we would have if we all had a Clipper Chip in our phones so the Trump administration could see whatever is on it.
The more things change, the more big govt types want to invade your privacy
 

Professional snoops are willing to back off their holy war against encryption—with just a few minor tradeoffs, of course. All we need do is allow them to invisibly join our conversations at will as "ghost" parties to encrypted communications. It would put our governmental overseers in the position of, say, that creepy neighbor who sneaks into the house of the couple next door and hides in the pantry while they lock the doors in the mistaken expectation of spending some quality time by themselves.

If you don't find that proposal reassuring, you're not alone. But let's see what the snoops are up to.

"It's relatively easy for a service provider to silently add a law enforcement participant to a group chat or call," mused Ian Levy, technical director of Britain's Government Communications Headquarters' (GCHQ) National Cyber Security Centre, and Crispin Robinson, GCHQ's technical director for cryptanalysis, in an article published last November. "This sort of solution seems to be no more intrusive than the virtual crocodile clips that our democratically elected representatives and judiciary authorise today in traditional voice intercept solutions and certainly doesn't give any government power they shouldn't have."

That Levy and Robinson gloss over a few details is obvious to even non-technical readers. While they evoke old-school wiretaps as featured in Hollywood movies, the "ghost proposal" requires redesigning whole new communications services to defeat attempts to maintain a modicum of privacy.

"This proposal to add a 'ghost' user would violate important human rights principles," an international consortium of civil liberties organizations, tech companies, and security professionals objected in a recent open letter. They went on to specify that the scheme floated by two officials with Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) would "pose serious threats to cybersecurity and thereby also threaten fundamental human rights, including privacy and free expression."
My response remains the same as in the 90's: get a warrant.

It has to be updated in light of Snowden's revelations: get a warrant without lying to the court.

Some things that should go without saying do not. As Eva Dent.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,236
287
near Seattle, Wa
Top