MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Defense Distributed Sues New Jersey, Los Angeles Over Legal Threats

The authorities threatened the gun-making software and hardware company. Now the company is striking back, citing its First and Second Amendment rights.

Defense Distributed, founded by Cody Wilson, provides the means for people to make weapons at home via software and 3D-printing and milling machines. Today that company, along with the Second Amendment Foundation, has sued the attorney general of New Jersey and the city attorney of Los Angeles.

Mark McDaniel/ReasonMark McDaniel/Reason

Gurbir S. Grewal, the attorney general of New Jersey, sent a threatening letter to Defense Distributed last week that claimed the company's "plans to allow anyone with a 3D printer to download a code and create a fully operational gun directly threatens the public safety of New Jersey's residents....Posting this material online is no different than driving to New Jersey and handing out hard-copy files on any street corner."

Grewal ordered the company "to cease and desist from publishing printable-gun computer files for use by New Jersey residents....Should you fail to comply with this letter, my Office will initiate legal action barring you from publishing these files before August 1, 2018."

Defense Distributed's legal right to post its information was won by the company via settlement this month after a long legal battle with the federal government. Before that settlement, the feds essentially wanted to treat the act of hosting or distributing such files as illegal arms exporting.

Defense Distributed informed Grewal on Friday that "all actions contemplated by Defense Distributed are fully protected by the First Amendment, and [Grewal's] attempts to prevent such actions constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint and otherwise violate the United States Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution."

It reinforced that argument with today's suit against Grewal and Michael Feuer, city attorney of Los Angeles, who issued a similar threat against Wilson's company last week. The lawsuit calls the officials' efforts "an ideologically-fueled program of intimidation and harassment."

The suit asserts that the threats from New Jersey and Los Angeles

violate the First Amendment speech rights of Defense Distributed and its audience, including [the Second Amendment Foundation's] members; run afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause; infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of those who would make use of the knowledge disseminated by Defense Distributed; constitute a tortious interference with Defense Distributed's business; and are in any event, federally pre-empted by Congress's export control laws as well as Defense Distributed's export license, by which the State Department has explicitly authorized the speech that the Defendants are seeking to silence. Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorney fees.

Josh Blackman, one of Defense Distributed's lawyers, adds via email that "States do not have the power to censor speech or commerce in other states, especially when that commerce is licensed by the federal government."

Cody Wilson announced via twitter today that his Defcad website is currently not accessible in New Jersey. This is at this point his own choice, given the legal threat he faces, a threat he hopes to eliminate with this lawsuit.

UPDATE: Within an hour before filing the above lawsuit, Defense Distributed was informed by the state of Pennsylvania that it was seeking a temporary restraining order in federal court to stop it from distributing weapon-making files in that state. During an emergency telephone hearing before U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond (which lawyer Josh Blackman had to participate in from a United Airlines lounge at LaGuardia Airport), Defense Distributed agreed to, at least through next week, voluntarily block Pennsylvania I.P. addresses until the legal issue can be resolved. As Wilson told Philly.com, despite that, he will "fight any effort by state officials to seek a permanent ban. 'Americans have the right to this data, Wilson said. 'We have the right to share it. Pennsylvania has no right to come in and tell us what we can and can't share on the internet.'"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • perlchpr||

    Posting this material online is no different than driving to New Jersey and handing out hard-copy files on any street corner.

    Which would, of course, also be legal.

  • Longtobefree||

    Well yeah, but require cutting down a BUNCH of trees, and a whole lot of data entry.
    Those files have a boatload of ones and zeros, man.

  • perlchpr||

    Yeah, if you really just had to put it on paper, punch cards would be the way to go.

  • Longtobefree||

    Nice thought.
    Amazon has all kinds of books about them, and even a few of the old keypunch machines, but no cards at all.
    You would have to first manufacture the cards, refurbish the machines, and then, oops, find an old mainframe to hook it up to.
    Maybe somewhere in the middle or far east they still use that stuff.
    The constitutional fights are cheaper.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I remember my first programming course, in High School. The instructor assured us that if all else failed, we could make a good income on our keypunch skills.

  • Radioactive||

    that was true, right up until about 1975 or 1976 when the first mag card machines came out...

  • Modus Pwnens||

    The argument is probably going to be that offering the files for download counts as firearm distribution across state lines, and he doesn't have a license to do that.

    The export control argument was much more plausible, and that didn't prevail, so this one probably won't either. But they can make this guy's life hell in the mean time.

  • GabrielSyme||

    Except AFAIK DefDist has an FFL, so they should be able to engage in interstate gun commerce

  • Brett Bellmore||

    If it actually were commerce in guns, by law *both* sides of the transaction would have to have the license for an interstate transaction to be legal. Which is why, when you order a gun from out of state, you get it mailed to an FFL holder.

    Mind, this is itself a constitutional abomination, and maybe getting that overturned would be the best FU to these states.

  • FlameCCT||

    Lest we forget; one can order almost every part needed to produce a firearm without an FFL. One can also find, both free & for a price, numerous articles on the construction of a firearm with or without a CNC machine. Hell, one can purchase an 80% complete AR lower without an FFL and finish it with hand tools and a little skill.

  • FiftycalTX2||

    So blueprints=gun? If I had the blueprints for an aircraft carrier, could I land a plane on it? Will the blueprints for a hydrogen bomb be radioactive?

  • OsamasPornStache||

    As a New Jersey resident Fuck you Turban man

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    As a New Jersey resident, aren't you getting amtrifle tired of living in a Peoples' Republic? Vote with your feet.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    As someone who has never been a New Jersey resident, why man, why? Get out while you can.

  • OsamasPornStache||

    I'm planning on it as soon as I'm out of college I'm perusing liberty

  • KevinP||

    The thuggishness of the left continues.

  • Longtobefree||

    You missed, one Mikey; he is lying about the first amendment too, right?

  • Mock-star||

    Oh this should be good. Exactly what other right is being interfered with by uploading code?

  • perlchpr||

    Shit. Who let this stupid robot loose on the internet?

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    Love how fucktard Mike constantly uses "unalienable" as if he were some drafter of the Declaration or some shit.....whotta dipshit....

  • Vin_Decks!!!||

    Mike... clean the spittle off your screen.... you're not able to read anything accurately....

  • perlchpr||

    With so many conservatards throwing hissy fits ... I'll even help them!!

    Well, you certainly throw hissy fits all the time, it's true.

  • Naaman Brown||

    unalienable (adj)
    1. not alienable
    Usage notes: Generally considered interchangeable with inalienable, even in legal settings. In the past occasionally distinguished but not specifically contrasted with inalienable; see inalienable: usage notes for details.

    inalienable (adj)
    1. Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable.
    inalienable right a right that cannot be given away
    Usage notes: While inalienable and unalienable are today used interchangeably (with inalienable the more common) the terms have historically sometimes been distinguished.

    Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856)
    INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech.
    UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.

  • Naaman Brown||

    unalienable (adj)
    1. not alienable
    Usage notes: Generally considered interchangeable with inalienable, even in legal settings. In the past occasionally distinguished but not specifically contrasted with inalienable; see inalienable: usage notes for details.

    inalienable (adj)
    1. Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable.
    inalienable right a right that cannot be given away
    Usage notes: While inalienable and unalienable are today used interchangeably (with inalienable the more common) the terms have historically sometimes been distinguished.

    Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1856)
    INALIENABLE. A word denoting the condition of those things the property in which cannot be lawfully transferred from one person to another. Public highways and rivers are inalienable. There are also many rights which are inalienable, as the rights of liberty or of speech.
    UNALIENABLE. Incapable of being transferred. Things which are not in commerce, as, public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions of the law forbidding their sale or transfer; as, pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are unalienable.

  • perlchpr||

    Goddamnit, somebody rebooted the stupid thing again.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I think it's in some kind of recovery mode which doesn't allow CAPS and bold italic fonts.

  • perlchpr||

    Yeah, if I had written a robot for the purpose of annoying people, I'd have it deny it was a robot too.

  • Pat_||

    Michael Hihn, no wonder why you affect a "yawn." you have a very sleepy brain.

    sorry but post after post shows you don't knows a single fact about the issue. This a FIRST amendment case.

    Do you understand why your unhinged ravings get laughed at? You have endless posts setting up strawman arguments,red herring and outright inversion of facts.

    Sitll waiting for a response to my correcting your claim that gun murder rose over a generation -- when it fell.

  • Mr. Weebles||

    Oh no! it's retarded.

    Such a shame.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    Child, your yawn is an indication that you are sleepy. Go to bed and quit bothering the adults with your insipid prattle.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    You gotta do better than that to get on the list, boy.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Watch that "boy" shit, redneck.

    - Sherriff Bart

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    Watch that "redneck" shit, boy.

    - Wheeler Walker Jr.

  • Mock-star||

    Im not your guy, friend!

    Terrence

  • Longtobefree||

    "I'm not your friend."
    Deputy Samuel Gerard

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    Liberals act like children. I treat them like children. So Captain Liberal here can go ahead and take his spanking like the child he is.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    You're such a goober.

  • Rock Lobster||

    You wouldn't know zero if it bit you in the ass.

    And repeating yourself ad nauseum in boldface doesn't magically increase your credibility or even your clarity. But then, you are batshit crazy, so have at it, I guess.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Shorter Hihn:

    How DARE you trigger me!

    REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

    (boldface in defense of MULTIPLE violations of my anus)

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    It's this when you start rewording for us what judges didn't say again?

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Boldface in bullshit. That wasn't aggression. It was simply stating awareness of past posts that ramble endlessly, often in contradictions.

    As for unalienable, you made the proposition without any supporting evidence. Not me. You want to make a wild claim among a group of folks that obviously don't follow your brand of "libertarianism" and then leave it sitting there for everyone to smell. I say it is up to you too support it given its baseless nature towed the article.

    Back to aggression, go fuck yourself, you crazy ass old geezer. That's aggression. Did I make the list? I want to be on the list. I hear your list is what really makes a person rise to the next level of cool around here. And like you I never had any friends. This is all I got. Please add me to the list!

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Michael, your premise that these rights are in conflict requires you to establish that they are in fact in conflict with some other unalienable right. You've never established that in the argument so far as I'm aware. Now is your chance.

    My take:
    The idea that owning a gun or the code required to manufacture a gun is in violation of another person's right to life or property (for example), is akin to the idea of pre-crime. Libertarians have historically held that only actual crimes that affect another person's life, liberty, property are crimes that the government should punish. Wearing masks in public is likely correlated to crime, but we wouldn't expect a ban on masks or communicating the sewing patterns required to make them to be reasonable things for government to ban.

    And even if there were a compelling correlation between owning the code to manufacture guns and crime, there's no evidence that a government ban would do anything to stifle criminal use of 3d printed guns. Prohibition did very little to curb alcohol consumption, creating instead a thriving black market that led to more organized crime. Same with the war on drugs or immigration. A ban is ineffective; sometimes the medicine is worse than the illness.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    All of the Americas have a relatively high rate. Much of this is related to the drug trade in South America, Mexico, and the United States I suppose. There are probably numerous differences between the countries you've listed. Correlation doesn't imply causation.

    Brazil is an interesting case with a very high homicide rate. They have been cracking down on legal gun ownership since 2004, despite a 2005 referendum where the people roundly rejected a firearms ban. Their rate on your link is over 5x higher than the US.

    How do you square the fact that millions of gun owners in the US own guns without ever infringing on anyone else's rights with the contention that the rights are in conflict? Should their rights be inhibited by the actions of a few bad actors?

    Do you agree that we should ban wearing masks in public, as many on the right have shown support for, because it might reduce crime?

    With regards to your question 4, rights in conflict have to be decided by application of existing laws in courts OR new laws to define the limits of your rights can be passed. It's a valid role of government to protect your rights which can sometimes mean limiting the rights of others. However what is being practiced in this case in New Jersey is akin to prior restraint; punishing the ideas of pre-crimes as if that's a valid thing.

    As an aside, this type of rational discussion looks good on you. I'll just leave it at that.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I'm sorry. I tried yet again to engage you in rational discussion and you've apparently come unhinged. I even complimented you on your rational response back to me and you respond with ad hominems.

    We're done here...

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Chump...

    Tribal cave...

  • ||

    1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first?

    The criminal shooting or attempting to shoot. DUH

    2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys ... BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did?

    No, its because guns are easily accessible regardless of bans. See the UK.

    3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

    Different cultures.

    4) What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict? Which prevails? Who decides? And why?

    No two absolute rights can be in conflict. End of line.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Since we are asserting that correlation implies causation, what are the GDP numbers for those countries? How about people wanting to move to those countries?

    Apparently if those countries ever want to be as successful as the USA, they should start trying to up their game when it comes to gunning the odd person down.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    In your Inconvenient facts (fully documented) you seem to be asserting that gun violence or at least mass shootings is wholly caused by a difference in gun regulations.

    There are numerous other differences between the enumerated countries, and yet you've specified only one factor and tied your conclusion to that.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    The GDP argument was proposed as a ridiculous correlation in the hopes that there would be a realization that there are many differences between countries, and choosing a single one as the cause of mass shootings is ridiculous, which I believe is what you stated above.

    I agree with "Let's find out", though I think the parameters I would vary to find a solution might be different than yours. Personally I think ending the drug war in all it's facets would go a long way toward ending both overt gun violence and the more insidious pervasive police state mentality that colors people's worldview.

    I think we've promoted fear and victimhood for a very long time now. It creates a feeling of hopelessness and a need to do something, even if it's rash. For some people that manifests as shooting up your school or workplace.

  • Tionico||

    Hokay Mikey wHihn..... get specific. Precisely WHERE (quote the words) did Brian DOherty lie about the Second Article of Ammendment? I did not see it..... and I went back and looked for it.

    And WHERE did he "reject core principle of unalienable rights"? Missed that one too.

    Unalienable means cannot be separated from. That means nor the State of New Jersey nor the City of Los Angeles can step between any of their own "subjects" and that individual's right to own and use firearms. And the ability and ensuing action to make a firearm at home is part of the right to KEEP.....

    You gonna throw darts on here, you gonna tell us what target you throwin' em' at. Because WE want to make sure your darts count... else we'll have to throw YOU out along with your useless darts.

  • Longtobefree||

    Finally, corporations are beginning to fight back at government abuses.
    Now if all gun manufacturers would refuse to sell to the state and local governments where the second amendment is infringed, as Barrett did in California, we might have a chance to remain a free country of laws.

  • perlchpr||

    That would be pretty swank. Tell NJ cops, "No more Glocks for you."

  • mbecker908||

    Unfortunately, Barrett still sells their 338 Lapua in CA, probably along with other guns. It would have been nice had they cut them off entirely.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Damages, eh?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Looks like an excellent test case for Defense Distributed. He's got a winner of a lawsuit, and the precedent should take care of cities and states elsewhere, too.

    They were trying to intimidate him? Looks like he's gonna turn it around and make an example of out them.

    Moral of the story?

    Maybe it's better for a city or state to think twice before fucking with Cody Wilson. That dude's got his shit together.

  • Rossami||

    Except that there are exactly zero negative consequences for the AG to make that threat. It doesn't matter how badly he loses, he scores political points and the taxpayers take it in the shorts for any penalties.

  • mbecker908||

    While I'd love to see the AG be personally bankrupt over this, I'll happily settle for bankrupting the state of New Jersey and seeing their taxes double or triple to pay off lawsuits like this. New Jersey residents keep electing these idiots, make them pay big time.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't think wasting a bunch of money and effort on a loser of a case is a sure way to the governor's mansion.

    He's making a fool of himself, and if the case gets cited as letting Cody Wilson sells what he wants in another 50 states, this AG is gonna look like an even bigger fool.

  • JesseAz||

    Governors mansion? Try white house. Look at the asshat kamela Harris. Threatened non profits and even counter political groups to send her office donor lists while she was running for Congress! Liberals love authoritarian bullshit.

  • 10mm||

    It's not authoritarian if you're harassing Rich Whitey. It's "Justice"!

  • Jakee308||

    could be enough to tip the scales for some.

  • Tionico||

    sue those two corrupt attorneys general in theie PERSONAL capacity, go after their personal bonds and nsurance for the harm they are PERSONALLY doing to DefDistributed, and for the financial harm they are causing along with the lawyer's fees.

    Then bring a criminal actioin against both for felony perjury.. swearing an oath to uphold the US Constitituon when they took office, then failing/refusing to honour their oaths. Conviction for something like this will end their poitical careers, and rightly so.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Your lips to Krishna's ears, but I don't see how the First Amendment argument would hold water. CAD files are not intended for a human to read or listen to, so how could it be considered speech or even expression? Is malware speech? Are hacking commands speech?

  • junyo||

    CAD files can be rendered, and the object they contain displayed and manipulated. As such, it's clearly expression. The argument that the object structural storage format isn't speech is like arguing that a political article isn't speech because it's written in MS Word and a .doc file is not human readable in a text editor.

  • ThomasD||

    That CAD files are copyrighted says your analysis is flawed.

  • Tionico||

    EVERY type of content is copywrighted the moment it is created, and is owned by the creator. This sentence I just created IS copywrighted and I own that copywright. My brother is an architect, and writes in CAD constantly. HE OWNS the copywright of all he creates on that computer. Try and build his building design without paying him for the use of that design and he'll retire off what you will be forced to pay. Defense Distibuted's ownership position on those files is no different. As such copywrighted work, those files ARE "expressiom" the same as if he'd committed the drawings to paper. Storage, retrieval, translating into a different form, are not at issue. The information conveyed IS at issue. And THAT is protected content, and cannot be controlled. If he had files containing child pornography that CONTENT would be in violation of law, and he subject to indictment. Proof his content IS expression, for which he COULD face prosecution if it were of certain subject matter.

    The problem with Joisey and lost Angeless is that they object to the content, but cannot establish that it is prohibited. So they are trying to sidestep that niggly detail and prosecute anyway. If I were DD I'd refuse to block IP's from those areas until a court orders it blocked. I'd think there is also an INterstate COmmerce issue here, too.. New Jersey blocking content THEY don't like coming from anohter state where it is legal.

  • Longtobefree||

    By that logic, the string of ones and zeros that are your post are not speech, and you can be prohibited from posting anything at all anywhere on the web, by a state government that does not like what your string of ones and zeros represents.

  • Rossami||

    "Is malware speech?" Yes.
    "Are hacking commands speech?" Yes.

    That does not necessarily make them protected speech but they most definitely are considered speech under US law and Supreme Court precedent.

    re: CAD files - you're wrong about your basic premise. They are every bit as intended for human consumption and understanding as any text-based paragraph. Do they require a software program to interpret? Generally, yes. And so do most digital books. (And like digital books, there really are a few wonks who can translate the binary directly into a more common language.)

  • Tionico||

    that First Article of Ammendment does not ONLY deal with "speech", and even if it did ONLY, "speech" can take many forms...... what we are doing right here this instant is conversing (transferring thoughts, ideas, information) via digits, no sound or paper involved. That Article also includes freedom of association, of the press, of belief...... surely those digital files, whether transmitted electronically or recorded onto a DVD and physically distributed, are protected. If I have the right (and I do) to take a DVD recording of a feature length film, wrap it up, put it into a cover, affix proper postage, and then transmit it via the Post Office, then I also have the right to transmit that same data over the internet, hand it face to face, package and well it at WalMart, upload it to the cloud and grant access to whoomever I choose, and on whatever basis I choose.... for the sake of this example, the feature length film in question is a work I created entirely and thus own it.

    How are the files to make a gun via CNC or other "language' any different? These clowns are attempting to make an issue of the CONTENT in that data file. Sorry, the content ain't child porn, thus it is not prohibited by (illegal) federal law.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Cody Wilson announced via twitter today that his Defcad website is currently not accessible in New Jersey.

    How did he do that? Does NJ have its own IPv6 range?

  • Don't look at me.||

    It wasn't him. Everyone in NJ made a pinky swear not to look until the government said it was ok.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    NJ is the only place where ::1 isn't home.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    In Soviet Jersey, IPv6 logs you!

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    I checked, it's not accessible from my location in the PRJ. I work in PA so I'll download the file there and bring it across the border, coyote style.

  • Jakee308||

    this is what I'm hoping for besides these AG's (don't they have other things to be more worried about?) is that when Defense Distributed puts these files up that some kind soul will mirror them so that those of us behind the Democrat digital wall will then be able to download them.

    The AG can't sue them all. Let them waste their time playing wack a mole.

    Besides as I have mentioned elsewhere, guns can never be banned. They can be built by anyone who's taken a shop class or two and can use a drill press and a screwdriver. What will the AG's do about those guns? Hmmm?

    That's what's happening in a lot of places with gun bans; the citizens are taking to build their own and since it's already a crime they go full out and build machine guns. Which are far more dangerous in normal use. But then the gun grabbers have never really been about safety or preventing violence or fighting crime. It's always been about power.

  • DaveSs||

    this is what I'm hoping for besides these AG's (don't they have other things to be more worried about?) is that when Defense Distributed puts these files up that some kind soul will mirror them so that those of us behind the Democrat digital wall will then be able to download them.

    The bold ones will tweet the mirror links, and will include the three anti 1st and anti 2nd amendment goobers in their tweets.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Gurbir S. Grewal

    Pronounced "Gerber gruel"? Is that a joke name?

  • Rock Lobster||

    Joke name? I have a vewy gweat fwiend in Wome called Gwewal.

  • ||

    The anti-gun AG of PA just announced the same thing. Except as a PA resident I have no problems getting on via IPv6.

    So screw you Shapiro

  • An Innocent Man||

    Came here to make the same announcement. Fuck Shapiro.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Electronic files didn't exist when the 1st Amendment was signed so it's not protected.

    /Hihn

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    Since freedom of the press refers to printing presses, the solution is simple: Defense Distributed can only offer the files as downloadable and printable but unpreviewable (unviewable on a screen).

  • James Smith||

    Modern equivanet of a musket is an AR-15. Not a single shot or bolt action cartridge rifle.

  • David Emami||

    Actually, the modern equivalent of a musket (in terms of relative-to-soldier firepower) would be an M-4 carbine, since that's what today's average soldier uses. In fact, what a civilian gun owner at the Founders' time had was very often superior to what a government infantryman had. As late as the Civil War, US Army soldiers were buying guns with their own money to replace inferior weapons issued to them by DC.

    Further, the Constitution assumes civilian ownership of not-just-small arms by virtue of giving Congress the power to issue letters of marque. Those are documents which give official sanction to civilians waging naval warfare against one's enemies. That assumes the existence of civilian-owned ships capable of acting as warships by equipping them with then-current naval weapons. The modern equivalent would be taking an appropriately-sized civilian ship and mounting cruise missiles on it.

  • Rebel Scum||

    The only way to interpret the amendment is to interpret it at the time it was written and apply it to today. Unfortunately for you and despite your unhinged rantings, technology changes but rights do not. That makes the overwhelming majority of government arms regulation patently unconstitutional.

  • Rebel Scum||

    You rejected the militia clause

    The militia clause is not the operative part of the statement that is 2A. What's your point?

  • ||

    No, - they ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not protected by the Second Amendment, because they had no evidence it was used in the military. That's because Miller's lawyer never showed up. Had he done so, he could have offered the many sawed off shotguns used by the military.

    So they ruled the opposite of what you say- which is pretty normal for your arguments.

  • ||

    THINK. In both Miller and Heller, the court established a new precedent. This REQUIRES them to ALSO clarify what else has or has not changed, Can you even begin to grasp that???

    I can, but you can't. The precedent they set was the right to keep and bear arms protects MODERN COMMON GUNS, like the AR15. You just don't like that answer, so you flail around pretending it says something different than it actually does.

    You are WAY out of your league.

    This is true. I cannot drop down to your level of willful ignorance.

  • David Emami||

    See "argument from authority fallacy." The fact that a given justice, or the entire court, ruled a certain way does not mean that their interpretation is correct. The Court has, in the past, ruled that a military draft does not constitute involuntary servitude per the 13th Amendment, yet I would not expect a libertarian to agree with that.

    As to the militia clause, Alexander Hamilton's writings in Federalist 29 make clear what "well-regulated" means. He's actually arguing that an official army is necessary and a militia won't be enough, because the average citizen doesn't have the time to devote to becoming well-regulated. But read the section that starts with "To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises..." and you'll see that "well-regulated" simply means "skilled."

  • Tionico||

    Filburn, Kelo, Lawrence, Scott, yes I DO overrule SCOTUS as they've got it wrong more than once.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    As a libertarian, are you in favor of those decisions?

  • Juice||

    Scalia said that the right to keep and bear arms could be limited (infringed) although the 2nd amendment clearly says that it shall not be infringed. He was just plain wrong.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Re: a), you're wrong, asshole. That SC decision, which, ironically, was really about resisting the government, was overturned in 1969. Since you're all about the SC being infallible, you should know that.

    Re: b), what the hell are you implying? That my possibly owning a gun equates with my swing a fist at your nose. (Believe me, correlation =/= causation on that one.)

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Re: the no free speech right to yell fire, it really goes to show the depths of your ignorance that you would parrot that stock leftist nonsense. After we've banned computer data shall we start implementing those leftist hate speech codes? What other speech shall we ban, oh Grand Elected Dumbfuck?

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    It was the ruling in 19-fucking-19. It was replaced almost 50 years ago!

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Brandenburg v. Ohio replaced the treasonous Schenck v. United States that was the precedent for the stupid "fire" crap. The only people who still bring that shit up are those who want to ban speech (including computer data!) they don't like.

    If I ask nicely would you please add me to your enemies list?

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    If I were you I'd probably ixnay on calling people psycho by the way. Pot, kettle, etc...

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Incidentally, endlessly quoting a Supreme Court decision like it was scripture handed down from on high makes you look like a massive putz when done on a libertarian website.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    A) The SC does not make laws. For a self-professed libertarian expert, you're pretty ignorant.

    B) Plessy v. Ferguson was also a SC decision. Back in the day did you go around telling people "separate but equal" was the law of the land?

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    A) The SC does not make laws. For a self-professed libertarian expert, you're pretty ignorant.

    B) Plessy v. Ferguson was also a SC decision. Back in the day did you go around telling people "separate but equal" was the law of the land?

  • Tionico||

    no, SCOTUS do NOT "make law", they render OPINIONS. Further, "the supreme law of the land" is the US Consitutioin together with all subsequent treaties and laws MADE IN PERSUANCE THEREOF. When a law is made NOT in accord with the Constitution, it is nill, void, of no effect, and no law at all.
    Since the Constitution demands all government at all levels leave our right to arms UNINFRINGED, an law that so infringes IS null, void, etc.

  • barfman2018||

    NO rights are unlimited,
    It's the meaning of unalienable.

    No, that is not the meaning of unalienable. Stop saying that. It's wrong. You're wrong.

    *barf*

  • Rebel Scum||

    Scalia disagrees

    Scalia is wrong. Are there any other rights that you think should be subject to technological advance?

  • ||

    Nope, Scalia agrees, reaffirming a 1939 ruling.

    You are wrong.

  • ||

    I used the words you provided. They say the opposite of what you say. It takes talent to do that, so I will admit I'm impressed at your willful ignorance.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    You are completely misinterpreting his words to the point that it may well be intentional.

  • ||

    That's the question we ask of you, because you clearly deny simple English because you disagree.

  • ||

    Why? Because you don't like the answer.

    You evade and fail, I show evidence using YOUR words.

    Sorry you don't like it.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    " I explain Scalia's Heller frequently, to RIDICULE goobers"

    And every time you do, all you accomplish is proving to everybody that you're the goober. But being a goober, you don't even notice.

  • ||

    Why was the NRA powerless against the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" ... for 10 long years?

    That's easy- they did not want to challenge it because the court was anti-gun at the time. The court was wrong of course, because the "AWB" was clearly unconstitutional. But they did not want to risk having a wrong precedent that would take decades to change- especially when it was due to expire anyway.

  • ||

    BECAUSE OF THE MILLER RULING!

    NOPE! Because the members of the court were anti-gun and would IGNORE the Miller ruling.

    Using US v Miller would have struck down the AWB easily.

  • ||

    You get his argument so wrong. You think that he argues that only common weapons in 1791 were covered, but he clearly means common weapons at ANY time.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    Can you interpret this passage, from Breyer's dissent in Heller?:

    "On the majority's reasoning, if tomorrow someone invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous self-defense weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no longer possess the constitutional authority to do so."

    In discussing Scalia's majority opinion, Breyer expressly hypothesizes about a new, yet-to-be-invented weapon, and how it could be found to be protected under the Second Amendment.

    Clearly, then, Breyer does not think Scalia's majority opinion is limited to guns used in 1791. Hell, Breyer is talking about guns that may be in common use in 2026.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    Breyer authored a dissenting opinion in Heller.

    Care to elaborate on how that statement is incorrect?

  • ||

    HIHN- "BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE WHAT IT SAYS!!!"

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    I'd link to it, but Reason's commenting system sucks, and says the address is too long. Not sure how to do the workaround.

    Regardless, the quoted passage is in Section V.

    Or, if you prefer, the pinpoint legal citation is District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 721 (2008) (Breyer, J., dissenting).

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Bryer is a SC justice Hihn. He clearly indicated Scalia meant weapons commonly in use at any time. DEFER TO HIS INTERPRETATION -- after all, he's a SC justice.

    After all, that's what you do.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    I know the joke is on me for responding to Mr. Hihn in a serious manner, but I'd truly like him to develop this discussion with his thoughts.

    I don't wholly agree with Scalia's formulation in Heller, but I don't think Mr. Hihn is describing it accurately. Breyer also disagreed with Scalia—but described his view accurately. Happy to debate that disagreement without name-calling, if Mr, Hihn is so inclined.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    I'd point out that I did, in fact, quote from an opinion—Breyer's dissenting opinion.

    Breyer's dissenting opinion means that he disagreed with Scalia—that's an accurate statement. Of course, you're also correct when you say that Scalia's majority opinion was the ruling of the Court. Those concepts aren't mutually exclusive. That's how split opinions work—Breyer's view was in the minority.

    I'd ask again: How have I misused the term "dissenting opinion"?

    Is it because I don't know how to link to websites on this antiquated commenting system? I provided you with the legal citation—that is enough to find it on the Internet with a quick search.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    I don't agree with Breyer on the substance of his argument.

    But he, like everyone in the world not named Michael Hihn, correctly understood Scalia's argument as not being limited to firearms in use in 1791.

    If the words of both Scalia and Breyer are unclear to you, I'm not sure how my own writing will bring clarity.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    Breyer's was a dissenting opinion. That's what it is called. It certainly wasn't a concurrence.

    How is that controversial? That's factual. It can't be argued.

    If we can't agree on that, we can't discuss the finer points of the opinion.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    Beause in order for Breyer to disagree with the majority opinion, he first has to set forth what the majority opinion says.

    He basically said: "Scalia says X. Here is why I disagree with X."

    Suffice it to say, Breyer does not interpret Scalia as saying the Second Amendment extends only to those firearms available in 1791–a point which is quite clear from Scalia's own words (but those don't seem to be working for you).

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    They both agree on one thing—what Scalia is saying.

    Breyer just doesn't think Scalia should have said it.

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    Scalia is calling your argument frivolous. How is that hard to understand?

  • Johnny Lawrence||

    You've got it ass backwards.

  • 10mm||

    Coming to a Blue State near you: licensing and background checks to procure a 3d printing machine.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Is there a file available for 3d-printing wood chips?

  • Longtobefree||

    Yes. But the analog version has much better sound effects.

  • Jakee308||

    Last I heard or saw that the only countries where ip's got banned was China and all the Muslim states that are afraid of what their citizens might learn or think.

    Guess the US and the various states run by Democrats now qualify as tyranny's.

    Btw; New Jersey and Pennsylvania and California(LA), anyone can buy a book from Amazon or another book seller and learn all about how to write these sorts of files themselves AND there's also books describing how to build a firearm from common materials found in most hardware stores using common tools and power tools with only minimal machining skill. And that's not 80% lowers I'm talking about. They're capable of full auto fire.

    Whatcha gonna do about them butt heads? Burn the books? Take Amazon off the internet? God I hate that we elected Democrats to run the state again. Hope we correct this in November.

  • David Emami||

    "Defense Distributed was informed by the state of Pennsylvania that it was seeking a temporary restraining order in federal court to stop it from distributing weapon-making files in that state."

    Even putting every other issue involved aside for the moment, this is wrong as well. Defense Distributed is not distributing files in Pennsylvania. The residents of Pennsylvania are going to it (its server, that is), asking for, and receiving those files. This is akin to Pennsylvania outlawing gambling, and suing Las Vegas casinos for allowing visiting Pennsylvania residents to play the slots.

    In fact, while IANAL, this strikes me as Pennsylvania trying to erect a barrier to interstate commerce. For once in a blue moon, Federal invocation of the Commerce Clause might actually be valid.

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, a court found that a firearm manufactured entirely in Montana, sold only in Montana, and engraved "for sale and use in Montana only" was a part of interstate commerce, so this should be a slam dunk.

  • Tionico||

    yeah, because SCOTUS back in 1934 or so got Filburn so wrong it hurts, even today. Their logic? Farmer Filburn's wheat, grown, harvested, milled, ground, consumed ALL on his own farm in the midwest, violated the interstate commerce clause because by growing/using wheat on HIS property he precluded someone else growing wheat in another state that COULD have been moved interstate to supply his need, instead of him growing it himself ahd "cheating" that other imaginary grower the opportunity to grow and supply Farmer Filburn.

    That's about like LIttle Johnnie in Second Grade wanting to use the RED crayon that Susie had, and since Susie would not let HIM use it, HE had to throw a temper tantrum and storm out of the room. It wasn't FAIRRRRrrrrrrrr that she kept it all to her selfish self.

    And Mikey Hinnie sez SCOTUS never gets it wrong......

  • ||

    While making your own gun in New Jersey is illegal without a permit, they cannot prohibit instructions on how to make one without criminalizing the possession of books. So it would in fact be perfectly legal for Defense Distributed to print up a bunch of books or pamphlets with their code in them and hand them out on the streets of New Jersey.

  • Tionico||

    Great idea Make it like some of the textbooks, that include a DVD inside the front cover. Guess what would be on that DVD???? Ya shooore yoo betchya. The books themself could be a compendium of the ways New Jersey's laws are unconstititutional, perhaps with citatations and references. But the DVD would be the thing......

    if I can sell a book with colonial era recipes and a how to do it DVD inside with pictures, I can do it with this stuff and "The Files' inside it too. Otherwise, NJ must discriminate on the basis of "content", and/or "viewpoint". And we ALL know how illegal THAT is.......

  • Huh18?||

    And go fuck yourself and your cease and desist order. Have a nice day.

  • Derpmaster General||

    I'm going to have to buy Cody Wilson a beer. The amount of "fuck yous" he's properly handed out to various government entities should make every libertarian jealous.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    The Great Firewall of New Jersey doesn't have the same ring to it as the Great Firewall of China.

  • Jerry B.||

    I had always thought that the first rule of internet discussions was, "Don't feed the trolls", yet folks here keep supplying sustenance to the HihnBot. Why, for crying out loud? Kirkland is bad enough, but Hihn takes it to a whole 'nother level. Makes me wish for an ignore button, like the WAPO comments software has.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The idea behind not feeding the trolls is that if you don't respond to them they'll get bored and go away.

    But Hihn is the Terminator of trolls. He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until the thread is dead.

  • TxJack 112||

    WTF? The issue is whether a state or city government can threaten to sue someone for exercising their 1st amendment rights when the government says what they are doing is not illegal. NJ and LA are attempting to circumvent the Federal government by imposing their own "rules" on issues they cannot legislate. The majority of the "discussion" here is about the word unalienable vs inalienable and the trading of school yard insults, so again WTF? I almost thought I was on Politico or some other moronic left wing site when I started reading the comments.

  • Architect of Liberty||

    Mr. Hihn is all caught up in a dead letter called the U.S. Constitution -- he is all caught up in the meaning of Federalism -- he is all caught up in finding and defining the right Amendment.

    What Mr. Hihn doesn't realize is that for all practical purposes, the U.S. Constitution no longer exists.

    What he also doesn't realize is the number and types of firearms and sidearms I have in my possession that have no serial numbers -- at the time of manufacture no less, and not from the result any after market actions.

    So, Mr. Hihn can take his "unalienable" or "inalienable" rights and stuff them up his fucking pie hole.

  • Frank Thorn||

    Now available in NJ (and has been since 2013)

    https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/8449468

  • BBerry12||

    This whole controversy is much ado about nothing. With these files you can make a lower receiver. Big deal. It's a useless piece of plastic until you can make yourself an upper receiver, a bolt, a barrel, and a trigger group. You can make a truck frame, but without a body, engine, transmission, etc, you wouldn't call yourself a truck manufacturer.

  • Bubba Jones||

    All those other parts are easy to buy online.

  • BBerry12||

    Are all those vendors' I.P. addresses blocked in NJ?

  • Tionico||

    but ONLY that lower receiver is the "firearm" per federal law.All the other stuff are the hang-ons that render it usable, fun, cool looking, more/less accurate, longer/shorter, etc. One can by that other stuff cash over the counter in any state, and lawfully put it into your car and drive it back home to New Jersey. Without that lower receiver none of those other bits have a place to hang themselves upon. What EnnJay hates is that somehow someone has figured a work-round to render their nannyist WE WILL BE IN CONTROL of EFFRYT'INGK. They HATE it when someone has something they don't like that something being the abiit to close the door on the nannies that think they run the state.

  • David Emami||

    From a Michael Hihn reply further up:

    See "argument from authority fallacy."

    LAME

    The fact that a given justice, or the entire court, ruled a certain way does not mean that their interpretation is correct.

    YOU OVERRULE SCOTUS?

    It just clicked for me. This isn't Mike Hihn, 76-ish former low-level LP candidate. This has to be his 9-year-old grandson or something. How else to explain his fixation for all-caps and bold (because if the letters stand out your ideas are MORE AWSOM!), his use of chat room emotes ("yawn", "shake head"), silly insults ("goober", "tard"), his reveling in word "fuck" which he's just discovered and is totally cool because mommy and daddy get mad when they catch him saying it, and boasting about how super he is. Also, his occasional complaints about bullying, which his teachers have told him is very bad and how he should run to an adult if anyone does it to him.

    I guess I should be grateful that Reason's forum software doesn't support emojis and animated GIFs. If it did, young Mike's posts would be sprinkled profusely with the former, and every time he thinks he's made a good point, we'd see Goku from Dragonball Z kamehameha'ing someone.

  • Brendan||

    That or he's just nuts. I've only interacted with maybe two other commenters anywhere (newspaper comment sections, forums, etc.) who inflected like he did and were quick to claim everyone else was deflecting and would insert those "knew you couldn't answer" mic-drops at the most bizarre times.

    After my local papers dropped their comment sections, I didn't get to watch a character named Jerry Sturdivant do his thing anymore, but now I have Hihn to watch.

    They're rare and a real treat to watch.

  • David Emami||

    ... and you proceed to demonstrate several of the items I mentioned (bold, allcaps, cyber-bullying accusation). Like I said, it's a good thing those animated GIFs aren't supported.

    And I'll be charitable for a moment (why, I don't know) and assume that what I've said has gone over your head, rather than you deliberately misconstruing it. Perhaps grandpa Mike isn't around to explain it to you (and you better log off his computer before he catches you, Mikey) but: there is a difference between something being true, and something being the law of the land. When I pointed out that you were using a logical fallacy, I meant was talking about the former. So, when the court ruled in the Dredd Scott decision that black people were "so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect", that was indeed the law of the land. It was not, however, true or morally right.

    Now, a libertarian might say "the mechanism messed up in that case, but it's still the best means we have overall." However, a libertarian would certainly not say (as you basically have been saying) "the Government said it, I believe it, that settles it."

  • David Emami||

    All I ever said or implied is that a SCOTUS ruling is the Supreme Law of the Land

    And all I said was that their rulings can be wrong. "The fact that a given justice, or the entire court, ruled a certain way does not mean that their interpretation is correct" were my words. That leaves the following possibilities:

    1. You do think it's possible for the Supreme Court to rule incorrectly, and that anyone is free to point this out if they think so. If that's the case, and you simply confused my saying the court can be wrong with my claiming the court doesn't establish law, then say so and we're done on that particular point.

    2. You think that the court ruling does indeed establish not just the law, but establishes fact and moral rightness. If that's the case, my characterization of your position is perfectly accurate.

    Of course there's also a 1A option -- you misunderstood, but are too arrogant to admit it and climb down.

    I'll make it simple: was the Dredd Scott decision incorrect and immoral? If you say "yes", see option 1. If you say "no", see option 2. Which is it?

  • David Emami||

    I hate to break it to you, but have you considered that when you format your posts into festering eyesores, that makes people less likely to read them? I did, however, read them. At the point where this started, I said:

    "The fact that a given justice, or the entire court, ruled a certain way does not mean that their interpretation is correct."

    To which you replied:

    "YOU OVERRULE SCOTUS?"

    This was in the context of you repeatedly countering participants with "but the SCOTUS says this!" sort of statements. You'll note that I did not say that a SCOTUS ruling is not the law of the land. Nor has anyone else here, though I admit I could have missed something.

    So. There are SCOTUS rulings regarding guns, and those rulings are official government policy, aka the law of the land. Nobody here has said otherwise. But please explain to us what you think follows from this. This is the law of the land, therefore... what?

    It's the law of the land, and therefore cannot be wrong?
    It's the law of the land, and therefore, nobody can disagree with it?

    If you keep stating that things are "the law of the land", obviously you think that has certain implications. So, I'll ask nicely, without insult or mockery in this particular comment: what do you think those implications are?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "that was indeed the law of the land. It was not, however, true or morally right."

    Well, a legal realist would say that. Other people might say, "The Supreme court just (deliberately?) misconstrued the law of the land, which has always prior acknowledged that black people can indeed be citizens with the full rights inherent in that status, just as white men had occasionally been slaves."

    We have to retain the capacity to recognize that the Supreme court can get the law wrong, not just the morality. There may be no appeal from them, but that doesn't make them infallible.

  • David Emami||

    "That libertarian Hihn"? That's absolutely hilarious!

    Oh, wait. Sorry for the big words, Mikey. You know how when you and your friends use chat programs, you like putting in the yellow smiley faces with the tears coming out of their eyes because they're laughing so hard? What I said was like using a whole row of those.

    A libertarian is always in favor of the individual right to bear arms. (No, not arms on your body, it's an old-timey way of saying "guns", like the guns in those games on your X-Box). When someone tries to take away peoples' guns, the libertarian will say that person is wrong, no matter who that person is. And a libertarian won't be afraid to say that person is wrong just because that person is big and important. A libertarian thinks people have that right just for being people.

    Also, a libertarian says that everyone is free to say or write whatever they want, including talking or writing about guns. That's what the original article was about.

    Now, I'm glad you seem to want to be a libertarian, Mikey. It's a good thing to be. But you need to work harder and learn more about it before you can really be one. Keep trying, we know you can do it!

  • David Emami||

    I agree. You claiming to be a libertarian is indeed stupid and infantile.

  • David Emami||

    WHY DO SO MANY CRAZY DUMBFUCKS SAY I'M NOT THE REAL MIKE HIHN?

    First, because I expect a well-adjusted adult to have a better grasp of debate and language, and to be able to carry on a discussion by writing things out, instead of having to resort to body-language substitutes like (snort) emotes, "strong" tags, and all-caps. Since you carry on a conversation like someone of age to be in grade school, I must assume that is, in fact, your age.

    Second, because the info on Mike Hihn states that he is (or was anyway) a member of the Libertarian Party. And while the LP is not perfect, I'd be very surprised to find a member of it who didn't understand that just because something is the law, that doesn't make it right. Now, I'm not saying this to be mean, Mikey. Nobody expects someone your age to understand these things yet, and I know "libertarian" is a big word, too. But if you want to grow up to be one someday, you should remember that getting permission to use someone's things is very important. So, don't install Fortnight on grandpa Mike's computer without asking him first, OK?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Look, it's as simple as this: Nobody wants to think the real Michael Hihn has gone insane, or senile.

    And if you're really Michael Hihn, that's what's happened: You're either insane or senile. Though I suppose technically you could be both.

  • Mark22||

    I'VE EVEN CREATED A WEB PAGE WITH ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT David is I am a PSYCHO.

    FTFY

  • Mark22||

    I'VE EVEN CREATED A WEB PAGE WITH ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT David is I am a PSYCHO.

    FTFY

  • Mark22||

    It just clicked for me. This isn't Mike Hihn, 76-ish former low-level LP candidate. This has to be his 9-year-old grandson or something

    The "or something" is likely some form of senility. However, he never was much of a libertarian to begin with as far as I can tell, or much of anything for that matter.

  • TangoDelta||

    Blocked from NJ & PA IP addresses? I'm guessing these monkey state lawyers have never heard of Tor.

    Oh, did I just end run around the voluntary block? My bad. LOL

  • J left||

    a VPN connection would do the same .

  • Carter Mitchell||

    Not to mention to the ignorant asses in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Los Angeles that the only requirement for getting around the IP address block is a low-cost VPN. The only thing sadder than their blatant stupidity is the ignorance and apathy of the sheeple that keep electing these parasites.

    "What to you call a thousand politicians at the bottom of the ocean? A good start"

  • Carter Mitchell||

    "power-crazed authoritarian"? In what universe can you extrapolate that from my comment? Were you confused or simply trying to reply to a different post?

  • Carter Mitchell||

    If you're referring to those politicians then, yes, you are correct. Sorry but that's not how your post came across.

  • Barry Gold||

    Eh. Push the tide back while you're at it.

  • Mark22||

    Are they gonna ban books on gunsmithing and machining as well?

  • Two Buck Chuck||

    Let freedom ring

  • J left||

    im Pretty sure a VPN connection would bypass any state ip block so no big deal .

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online