Shall Not Be Questioned

Dave Kopel has a great article over at the Volokh Conspiracy on the original plastic gun panic that happened in the 1980s.

“Qaddafi Buying Austrian Plastic Pistol.” That was the headline from columnists Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta in Washington Post on January 15, 1986. According to the article, “The Libyans are said to be trying covert methods to obtain these weapons.”

Today, Glocks are ubiquitous, one of the most common pistols, with many models. But in January 1986, they were little known in America, where only a few thousnd had been sold.

Swiftly, the gun control lobbies began warning Americans about the “plastic pistol.” They dubbed them “terrorist specials” or the “Hijackers Special.” Supposedly, this plastic gun was designed to sneak through metal detectors.

I remember that panic about Qaddafi trying to get a hold of Glocks. It’s interesting that quick law enforcement adoption is likely what saved a lot of pistols.

The comment section over there is a den of cliched wookie suitery:

“Thanks for admitting the NRA compromised.”

Of course it did, because the alternative to an “undetectable firearms” law that actually banned no guns was a much broader law that would have banned nearly all small, concealable firearms before the concealed carry revolution even got off the ground. If you say something like this while adjusting your trusty LCP you carry in your pocket, you’re an idiot.

Remember, “Something must be done!” is the impetus for most of this bullshit. NRA gave them “something” that didn’t ban a single gun, and it put the issue to bed long enough for technological change to make Metzenbaum’s position politically untenable.

“Remember Reagan signed the only outright Federal gun ban.”

Yes, as part of a much broader bill that was intended to prevent the gun culture from being extinguished. No one I’ve ever spoken with who was involved in the FOPA fight thinks that scuttling the whole thing over the Hughes Amendment would have been a wise idea.

So far we’re weathering the 3D gun scare a lot better than we weathered the original plastic gun hysteria. I was only 10 in 1986, but I remember the hype in the news. At the time, I wasn’t aware the whole issue was essentially bullshit: I did not come from a gun owning family. The difference is communication is much better these days, and it’s easier to counter disinformation campaigns. Social media has changed a lot, both for good and ill.

Yesterday, Alyssa Milano’s NoRA (wow, that’s just so clever) group managed to get codeisfreespeech.com shut down briefly, but they relocated and have come back online.

The largest site distributing #3Dgun blueprints unlawfully has been shut down. We are working hard to do @SecPompeo’s job and put this genie back in the bottle. Maybe he should try it. #DownloadableDeath pic.twitter.com/2tpKcRuHpj

— #NoRA (@NoRA4USA) August 2, 2018

I have to admit, it checks all the boxes for being the work of Ladd Everitt, formerly of CSGV. Maybe it’s one of his protégés, because last I checked Ladd was still wasting his time with George Takei. But #DownloadableDeath is the kind of over the top hysterics that Ladd could be rightly proud of.

If you’re looking for an alternate source for all your 3D CAD needs, you need to look no further than here. Also:

“I’m desperately trying to ensure that the president can engage in the prior restraint of online information—specifically so that people can’t make weapons at home.”
“I see. What do you call yourself?”
“The Resistance.”

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) July 31, 2018

Tam’s reaction to that is pretty much spot on. I’m really hoping the civil rights lawsuits here are going to be epic.

If you want to view the actual TRO issued against Defense Distributed, you can find it here. I would actually argue that Pennsylvania has no standing to join this suit, since making a firearm at home is not illegal under Pennsylvania law. There is no Pennsylvania law our Governor and Attorney General can articulate that Defense Distributed publishing CAD drawings would undermine. Pennsylvania’s entry into this suit is grandstanding, and that’s about it.

If you don’t want to read the whole TRO, I can sum it up for you.

“Because I, judge, sez, you have a strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits, and this downloadable plastic gun mumbo jumbo sounds scary, a Temporary Restraining Order you can haz!”

But seriously, I will try to explain the issue as best I can, and as best as I understand it. The Plaintiffs here, the various state AGs, contend that the Trump Administration has to go through the rule making process prescribed by the Administrative Procedures Act if they want to change the USML (United State Munitions List). The Administration has agreed to pursue that rule change. But in the mean time, Defense Distributed was granted a license to share their CAD drawings. It’s hard for me to see how the various state AGs have a strong likelihood of succeeding on the merits. The AECA allows the President to grant waivers. Defense Distributed has argued that the decision to grant a license is not even judicable, and cites ample precedent that shows in similar context, the courts, even the 9th Circuit, have agreed it is not.

This is not even considering the First Amendment claims here.

I suspect that the true goal of all the bump stock and 3D printing hysteria is to limit home gun smithing and make working on your own firearms a legally risky maneuver. Well, I should say, more legally risky than it already is. You can also reach AR-15s this way without going for a full on ban because the fact that it’s highly customizable. Eliminate the ability to customize without going to a licensed pro and you might not have your ban, but you’ll push the more dedicated owners out of the hobby. Once you start cutting numbers, then the ban is more politically feasible. Where the gun control movement has managed to find success over the years is by finding an exploiting fault lines among gun owners.

At the risk of sounding conspiratorial, I don’t think the bump stock bans that also happened to greatly increase the legal hazard of doing ordinary customizations on a semi-automatic firearm were an accident. If they just wanted a bump stock ban, a bit of a wording change to make the language more precise, and they’d have won without much fight. But they keep pushing the same language in state after state.

Then this 3D printing bullshit blows up into a huge thing. If it were the Brady Campaign, I might just see it as something they view as good fundraising, and dismiss any strategic thought being behind it. But Bloomberg didn’t end up a billionaire by being a fool or an idiot, and Everytown doesn’t really have to worry about fundraising as long as Bloomberg is writing checks. So I’m more inclined to think there’s a plan.

If I’m right, it’s a smart one, and unfortunately has a chance of working. Trying to ban sharing CAD files on the Internet is a fool’s errand, but it’s framing the debate in the public in terms that aren’t immediately favorable to us. My worry is Cody Wilson is picking a huge fight on ground I’m not sure is defensible. Most people, including most gun owners, don’t know shit about what dedicated hobbyists are doing with their guns. They know even less about 3D printing or CNC machining. Ground where ignorance rules is fertile ground for people willing to win by waging disinformation campaigns.

While I argue there are topics in the gun issue that are better off flying under the radar, anything that does that is ripe for exploiting by people looking to scaremonger. The antidote to that is familiarity. Defending home gun smithing will actually be easier when every kid has a 3D printer and CNC machining can be done by anyone without having to know much about machining. The more people tinker, even if they aren’t tinkering with guns, the safer every tinkerer is as long as they don’t throw each other the bus. But are we there yet? That’s what I’m not sure about. The question in my mind is whether Cody Wilson is out too far ahead and inviting a counterattack we can’t defend against, or I’m just too cautious. I’m open to either being true, or both.

Published over at Code is Free Speech. Also, seen on the Internets:

In a world where there are 3-D printers and thumbdrives (not to mention peer-to-peer file sharing over networks), this fight is already over. About all we can do is pass laws that are 21st-century versions of the 19th-century British law that required a man with a red flag had to precede the dangerous menace of horseless carriages to protect the public.

Yep. That’s exactly what this is.