I wanted to edit the OP to add these links, but I somehow couldn't find the button for it...
Filings can be found here:
Of note, the government finally responded to DD's commodity jurisdiction requests after about two years. The government includes in the list of controlled munitions, the following (verbatim):
- The Liberator Pistol Data file
- The .22 Electric Data file
- The 5.56/.223 Muzzle Brake Data file
- The Springfield XD-40 Tactical Slide Assembly Data file
- The 12 Gauge to .22 CB Sub-Caliber insert Data file
- The VZ-58 Front Sight Data file
The government's response to the motion for summary judgement includes a lot of weird stuff, including the notion that "CAD files unquestionably control the functioning of a 3D printer and cause it to manufacture firearms." And that, the CAD files are not purely informational. [If any of you have used a 3D printer, you know that the design file needs to be exported into a certain intermediate, lossy format first, and that a second piece of software made for the 3D printer then takes that intermediate file and uses it to create a set of directions that the 3D printer uses to create the part. This second piece of software requires the user to have some skill and enter appropriate values to be used in generating the directions so that the part actually comes out...] Here's their response:
And the plaintif's reply to the defendent's objection:
"As Justice Stewart recognized in the “Pentagon Papers” case, a prior restraint is justifiedonly where the disclosure will “surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people.” New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 730 (1971) (Stewart, J.,concurring) (emphasis added). Defendants’ alleged national security and foreign policy harmsare indirect, indeterminate, and speculative. They do not even come close to meeting thethreshold identified by the Supreme Court in the Pentagon Papers case, where the nationalsecurity implications were far more concrete and actionable than anything identified in this case."
"With respect to step-two of the Second Amendment inquiry, Defendants assume without discussion that intermediate scrutiny would apply. Why? Their action impedes the exercise of core Second Amendment rights by responsible, law-abiding Americans. And even under intermediate scrutiny, Defendants barely attempt to show why such a breathtakingly radicalrestriction—banishing all firearms-related technical data from the Internet—would constitutionally “fit” their interests."
"Defendants’ surreal construction of the term “export” cannot be reconciled with the First Amendment’s protection of speech that is accessible to foreign persons—even if it affects national security. Under Defendants’ view, the State Department could require the New York Times to seek permission to “export” the Pentagon Papers—also known as publishing a newspaper—lest a foreigner read the article over the shoulder of a U.S. citizen. "
Looks like there was a hearing for the motion for summary judgement yesterday. Does anyone know where I can find the audio?