No Constitutional (Or Logical) Basis for Ruling Against 3D-Printed Guns

0

It’s not that hard to understand the fear that rises up among normal Americans – even the president of the United States – when you start talking about 3D-printed guns. That goes double when the majority of facts being printed about this phenomenon are wrong. The idea that criminals, psychos, and terrorists could be sitting in their home manufacturing AR-15s by the truckload, printing guns that can’t be detected by airport security, and entirely running around any attempt to run background checks…well, it’s a little unsettling. Especially when you consider how many unstable people live in this country. What’s next? 3D-printed bombs? Rocket launchers? Nukes? The mind reels.

On the other hand, the mind also reels to think about a president who is secretly working for Vladimir Putin on the world stage.

Thankfully, with just a little bit of effort and a modicum of common sense, we can dispel the mainstream media’s dumbest myths and restore our peace of mind. Our president is not a Russian mole, no one’s going to be downloading a nuclear weapon from their laptop, and 3D printed guns are not the end of the world.

Unfortunately, when you’re talking about things like effort and common sense, you can’t always count on U.S. courts to exhibit anything of the kind. That’s why this week a federal court in Seattle ordered a restraining order against Defense Distributed, blocking them from posting blueprints for 3D-printed guns. This was a ruling that has no foundation in the Constitution, runs directly contrary to both the First and Second Amendments, and is entirely based in the kind of fear-based mythmaking upon which the left and their media empire depend. What it is NOT based on is the law.

The law states that the home manufacture of guns is permissible.

The law states that plastic, “undetectable” guns are already illegal.

The law states that the government may not interfere with the free distribution of information without overwhelming cause.

Thus, the court’s ruling is an unlawful infringement on freedom of speech, protects us against a threat that is wholly imaginary, doubles down on a law that already exists, and acts – at best – as a bit of security theater to pacify idiot liberals who haven’t the slightest clue what they’re talking about.

It’s really nothing to us one way or the other what happens to 3D-printed guns specifically. But when we see legal rulings based in hysteria and illogical deception, it bothers us greatly. We can’t just ban things because of propaganda and myth. Freedom and the rule of law insist that we exercise extreme restraint before we go curtailing liberties. That was not done in this instance, and it needs to be corrected ASAP.