A Little Light

Well, a 19-year-old kid went to the Florida high school he used to attend and killed seventeen people by shooting them with an semi-automatic gun. CNN reports that this is the ninth-deadliest mass shooting is "modern" United States history (as this CNN article points out, we say "modern" because it's hard to get data on mass shootings before 1949). ABC News points out that six weeks in to 2018, there have been 18 shootings at a school in the United States. That averages out to three shootings a week! This needs to stop.

Don't buy the myth

As is my custom, I did not look at the news Monday morning before I walked to work. So I was in a good mood when I passed the security guard in lobby of the building where I work. My mood got even better when I noticed the guard had set out sugar cookies with pink frosting. When I asked why the cookies were out, the guard said they were to remind folks that October is breast cancer awareness month. I took a cookie and ate it. It was delicious.

Can The Liberator Be Stopped?

Yesterday I linked to a Farhood Manjoo piece in Slate about the Texas law student to came out with a 3D-printed gun ("the Liberator"). Mr. Manjoo's take is that, even if you're the kind of person who might worry about this, you shouldn't because government will not allow it to happen:

Even non-repressive regimes can impose harsh penalties to limit the spread of certain information. The United States couldn’t stop WikiLeaks from distributing secret diplomatic cables, but it did manage to strike a terrible blow to the group when it cut off its funding sources. In the same way, by imposing strict penalties for the distribution and possession of child pornography, Western governments have severely limited its spread online.

The rise of file-sharing seems to support the 3-D gun movement’s claims—people share movies and songs illegally online, and no government has been able to stop them. But note that doing so isn’t completely safe; if the authorities set their mind to it, they can bankrupt you for sharing songs online. Countries where guns are already strictly curbed could impose similarly harsh measures against the distribution of plans for 3-D guns—and if they enforce them strictly, they might well limit their availability.

To the extend Mr. Manjoo is basing these arguments on U.S. law, the analogies to crackdowns on pirated music / movies and child pornography are way off-base.

First, the analogy to piracy fails because there will be no copyright issue. Mr. Wilson and his kind will be distributing these plans, which are their own intellectual property, freely and without restriction. It is only copyright law that prevents distribution of movies and music, and it is only copyright that allows the government to enforce the standards Mr. Manjoo mentions. Given that there will be no copyright on these gun-printing blueprints, no one will have the legal right to prevent their distribution. Congress would need to pass a law to make such plans illegal, but that law would almost certainly be unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, or both.

Second, the child porn analogy fails for a similar reason. Laws preventing dissemination of child porn are allowed on a very narrow exception to the First Amendment, and there is no reason to believe that dissemination of these gun-plans would fit any exception.

That is not to say the U.S. government is without recourse. In fact, it's already taking action. The U.S. State Department wrote Mr. Wilson a letter demanding that he take the plans down from his website on the theory that they may violate export regulations under certain arms control treaties. Mr. Wilson has complied with the request pending the State Department's review, although he believes that the regulations do not apply to his non-profit enterprise. This also raises issues whether the government can regulate anything published on a website as an "export" and whether treaties pertaining to exports can override constitutional rights. But we'll leave those questions for another day. I will just note that you can buy the "Anarchist Cookbook" on Amazon.

Is a Crypto-Anarchist Fit for the Bar?

Cody Wilson, a second-year law student at the University of Texas, has successfully created a 3D-printed gun and fired it. Here's the awesome video:



Mr. Wilson is apparently an extreme libertarian who, according to Farhad Manjoo, describes himself as a "crypto-anarchist":

Crypto-anarchism (or crypto-anarchy) is a cyber-spatial realization of anarchism. Crypto-anarchists employ cryptographic software to evade prosecution and harassment while sending and receiving information over computer networks, in an effort to protect their privacy and political freedom.

Prospective lawyers generally must establish their "character and fitness" to be bestowed with the privilege of practicing law. I wonder whether a person who openly avows anarchy could be found fit to practice law—that is, to become an officer of the court sworn to uphold the constitution and laws of the United States. This question itself may have an unsavory aftertaste, given that it calls to mind similar questions asked of Communists during various Red Scares. But that's how I roll.

Mr. Wilson seems to have broken no law with his 3D-printed gun, and even took active steps to comply with federal law by inserting a non-functional piece of metal into the final product. And I actually can't find any evidence to back up Mr. Manjoo's assertion that Mr. Wilson describes himself as a crypto-anarchist. (All I can find is an interview in which he expresses enthusiasm for cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin. It's quite possible that Manjoo just made up this anarchist stuff, because as you'll see in my next post he makes laughably wrong assertions regarding the law in the very same article.) But, assuming for a moment that Mr. Wilson is openly anarchist, it seems fair to at least explore whether such beliefs are consistent with swearing the lawyer's oath of admission.

Neil Macdonald is not a member of the National Rifle Association.

At least I assume he is not a member based on this op-ed he wrote.  He probably should be a member, however.  Members of the NRA vote to elect the leadership of the NRA.  So if you do not like the NRA's position on the availability of assault weapons or on the advisability of having an armed guard in every school, join the NRA and vote for leadership that does not espouse those positions.  The alternative is joining anti-gun groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.  I hope I do not insult anyone associated with the Brady Campaign by pointing out that the NRA has been cleaining the Brady Campaign's clock lately when it comes to both gun legislation and court decisions.

What do you think Mr. Torvik?  Would infiltration be a more effective means of change than joining the current anti-gun groups?