Taurus Firearm Forum banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,908 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Recently a major 2nd amendment court ruling was decided which has somehow stayed under the radar. I imagine it will at some point be better highlighted by at least the conservative media.

To keep it very brief an individual named Cody Wilson was prosecuted for posting 3D print files of weapons on the internet. After a protracted court he was exonerated, basically making it legal now for anyone to do so. Another significant part of the ruling was that AR-15 type weapons are not considered military weapons but in fact sporting weapons.

Make of this what you will but it is a significant win for the pro second amendment community. I'll keep any opinions to myself with the hope that this thread will not end up banished to the political forum.

The article tends to ramble so I will paste a summary from within the article for those who don't want to wade through it, as well as the link to the article.

Significantly, the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber—including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms—are not inherently military.
"Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby," noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called 'weapons of war,' and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort.
"Under this settlement," he continued, "the government will draft and pursue regulatory amendments that eliminate ITAR control over the technical information at the center of this case. They will transfer export jurisdiction to the Commerce Department, which does not impose prior restraint on public speech. That will allow Defense Distributed and SAF to publish information about 3-D technology."

https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/10/the-goverment-will-allow-cody-wilsons-de

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,735 Posts
There was no "Court Ruling". There was a settlement. Big difference.


"Since this is a settlement and not a victory on the merits in court, the government is still officially insisting their actions did not violate any rights. But an optimistic Gura thinks the "courts might remember this episode the next time the government offers up a spurious national security claim.""
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,960 Posts
I've been following Cody for about five years now. He built an A/R lower with 3-D technology and the government seized it.
I haven't had time to read the judgement, but as I remember it, the right to keep and bear arms also allows individuals to build their own individual firearms.
I'm thinking the court confirmed that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,735 Posts
I've been following Cody for about five years now. He built an A/R lower with 3-D technology and the government seized it.
I haven't had time to read the judgement, but as I remember it, the right to keep and bear arms also allows individuals to build their own individual firearms.
I'm thinking the court confirmed that.
There was no judgement. The court confirmed nothing as a matter of law, only the settlement. It was an out of court settlement.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,195 Posts
I believe glenwolde is right. Settlements are essentially the two parties involved in a case coming to an agreement between themselves. They don't establish case law the way a ruling by a judge does, unless I'm mistaken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chefduane

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,356 Posts
I believe glenwolde is right. Settlements are essentially the two parties involved in a case coming to an agreement between themselves. They don't establish case law the way a ruling by a judge does, unless I'm mistaken.
They dont establish case law but they do set precedent. Now this decision can be cited in other cases that will set case law. Remember, we have to take back the 2nd the same way it was taken from us, small steps and build insurmountable rulings in our favor.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,206 Posts
I'm not so sure that this sets any precedent from a legal standpoint at all. Of course, I be wrong as I'm no legal expert. But...

"In common law legal systems, a precedent, or authority, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on, or persuasive for, a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts." (Wiki)

There is no principle or rule that was established as binding by the court since the case was settled out of court. Certainly a lawyer could cite the out of court settlement as potential remedy for a similar set of circumstances, but the court has no binding or legally persuasive requirement to consider the settlement as precedent for any future remedy.

The key statement made (IMHO) is "the government expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber—including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms—are not inherently military."

That statement can now be used as an argument against any party that attempts to irrationally make the point that no individual should be allowed to own what they deem "a military style weapon." We all know that by that they mean a semi-auto AR-15 or similar firearm. Since that type of firearm can no longer from a legal standpoint be considered "military style" look for the progressives to (once again) change the language to something they deem equally scary to prove their elusive point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,058 Posts
They dont establish case law but they do set precedent. Now this decision can be cited in other cases that will set case law. Remember, we have to take back the 2nd the same way it was taken from us, small steps and build insurmountable rulings in our favor.
Correct!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,908 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Ruling, judgement, settlement....One small step for man, one giant leap for the 2nd Amendment!!!:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,614 Posts
Hey, the Left and the Progressives use this sort of "ruling" (actually settlement) to advance their nefarious agenda. It doesn't matter if it isn't a "ruling" as such; they just use it anyway. Of course it is a bald-faced lie but the average person sees it presented as a "court decision" just the same. Time to turn the tables on them.

Get the mops ready. The left will melt shortly!! :D :rofl:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,206 Posts
Ruling, judgement, settlement....One small step for man, one giant leap for the 2nd Amendment!!!:D
There was no ruling as the agreement between the two parties was reached OUT OF COURT. There was no judgement as the agreement between the two parties was reached OUT OF COURT. The only settlement agreed upon was between the two parties OUT OF COURT. The two agreeing parties then let the court know that they have amicably agreed to terms without the court's counsel.

Sorry to play devil's advocate on this but the Court made no ruling, issued no judgement, put in place no settlement, and no legal precedent was set. In an out of court settlement the two parties say to the Court "Never mind, we have settled this ourselves and come to an agreement without the need for a Court proceeding." Hence the term OUT OF COURT.

Now, either party could petition the Court for a Writ of Execution to enforce the provisions of the out of court settlement, but that's another issue.

This is a victory for 2A supporters inasmuch as the AR-15 and it's variant platforms are no longer legally determined as a "military style weapon."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,952 Posts
As much as I am encouraged by the comment, ". . . the government expressly acknowledges non-automatic firearms up to .50-caliber–including modern semi-auto sporting rifles such as the popular AR-15 and similar firearms–are not inherently military," I'd still like to know WHO in government actually acknowledged that, and how was it actually worded?

Another detail from the article that gives pause: ". . . the government will pay more than $39,000 of the plaintiffs' legal and administrative fees. Cody Wilson, chieftain of Defense Distributed, tells Wired that this is only about 10 percent of what they've spent." So Defense Distributed spent about $390,000 to arrive at a settlement that kept it out of court, but settled for a fraction of that. Would hate to see what it would have cost to go to court.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
11,265 Posts
We need to take what we can get. While the court may not have ruled on the specifics, it did let the settlement go forward. It doesn't set precedent, but it sets a legal plateau that gives any future case a starting point.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,082 Posts
This is old news . . . and, not really “new” at all. Way back before and during the GCA go 1968, congress and the ATF had agreed that AR-15s were excluded from “military” classification of firearms. Take a look at the thread I posted a few days ago about the “Congressional Review of the 2A” in 1982. Like I said then, not a long document to read but filled with historical info of how the Congressional interpretation of the 2A has evolved over the years as well as the historical abuses of the ATF towards 2A.

There is an entire documentation of bureaucratic abuse of 2A privileges over the years in that document. This was nothing more than basically upholding a law as it was originally written - not subject to the tarnished discussions of AR-15s over the past couple of decades.


Oh, and, just to be thorough in the background treatment of the 2A, a 1939 SCOTUS ruling, acknowledging the reason for the 2A was for defensive use of the public from an abusive Gov’t and not just “sporting purposes”, held that military arms, in any instance, WERE protected by the 2A.! Everyone here knew that, right? Seems I’m always the last in line at the buffet . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: rollin thunder

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,206 Posts
Oh, and, just to be thorough in the background treatment of the 2A, a 1939 SCOTUS ruling, acknowledging the reason for the 2A was for defensive use of the public from an abusive Gov’t and not just “sporting purposes”, held that military arms, in any instance, WERE protected by the 2A.! Everyone here knew that, right? Seems I’m always the last in line at the buffet . . .

Hey now THAT sounds interesting. Do you happen to know the names of the parties involved or perhaps even a docket #? Findlaw.com lists 160 or so decisions that year. I'd like to read up on that one!
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top