Judge halts online distribution of 3-D printed plastic gun blueprints

A US district judge placed a temporary restraining order on a Texas company which will prevent it from posting online blueprints for an untraceable 3-D printed plastic gun, citing the potential harm the weapons could cause the state.

Eric Gay/AP
Cody Wilson, with Defense Distributed, holds a 3-D-printed gun called the Liberator at his shop in Austin, Texas. A federal judge in Seattle has issued a temporary restraining order to stop the release of blueprints to make untraceable and undetectable [[3-D]]3D-printed plastic guns.

A US judge in Seattle blocked the Trump administration Monday from allowing a Texas company to post online plans for making untraceable 3-D guns, agreeing with 19 states and the District of Columbia that such access to the plastic guns would pose a security risk.

The states sued to stop an agreement that the government had reached with Austin, Texas-based Defense Distributed, saying guidelines on how to print undetectable plastic guns could be acquired by felons or terrorists.

US District Judge Robert Lasnik extended a temporary restraining order, and his new decision will last until the case is resolved. He said Cody Wilson, owner of Defense Distributed, wanted to post the plans online so that citizens can arm themselves without having to deal with licenses, serial numbers, and registrations.

Mr. Wilson has said that "governments should live in fear of their citizenry."

"It is the untraceable and undetectable nature of these small firearms that poses a unique danger," Judge Lasnik said. "Promising to detect the undetectable while at the same time removing a significant regulatory hurdle to the proliferation of these weapons – both domestically and internationally – rings hollow and in no way ameliorates, much less avoids, the harms that are likely to befall the states if an injunction is not issued."

The State Department had reached the settlement with the company after the agency removed the 3-D gun-making plans from a list of weapons or technical data that are not allowed to be exported.

The states argued that the federal agency didn't follow the law when it removed 3-D guns from the munitions list. They said the government was supposed to notify Congress and provide a 30-day window before making a change to that list, but it did not.

A lawyer with the US Justice Department had argued against the injunction, saying possessing 3-D plastic guns is already against the law, and the federal government is committed to enforcing that law.

But the judge said it wasn't enough.

"While the court appreciates the earnestness with which this commitment was made at oral argument, it is of small comfort to know that, once an undetectable firearm has been used to kill a citizen of Delaware or Rhode Island or Vermont, the federal government will seek to prosecute a weapons charge in federal court while the state pursues a murder conviction in state court," Lasnik said.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson praised the judge's ruling.

"Once again, I'm glad we put a stop to this dangerous policy," Mr. Ferguson said. "But I have to ask a simple question: Why is the Trump administration working so hard to allow these untraceable, undetectable, 3-D-printed guns to be available to domestic abusers, felons, and terrorists?"

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a pro-gun control group that has aggressively fought the online release of the gun plans, praised the judge's ruling "as a tremendous victory for the American public."

Avery Gardiner, co-president of the group, said 3-D-printed guns "represent a supreme threat to our safety and security, and we are grateful that Judge Lasnik recognized it as such."

The states suing are Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.

This article was reported by The Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.