It's the day before the plans for self-made printable weapons will be released in the market The Internet for everyone around the world, courtesy of a Texas Nonprofit called Defense Distributed – and now the topic has caught the President's attention.
"I see 3-D Plastic Guns sold to the public," President Trump said on Twitter Tuesday morning. "I've already talked to the NRA, does not seem to make much sense to me!"
Trump's concern comes after last-minute democratic legislatures and civil servants filed lawsuits and prepared legislation, in a frantic attempt, for the widespread availability of 3 To stop -D-printable plastic rifles.
The federal government signed an agreement on June 29 with the company responsible for the public collection of blueprints for downloadable weapons to publish online.
Defense Distributed identifies itself as the only federally-authorized US government technology company to publish these plans online in the form of design data for the 3D printers. The available weapons – plastic and without serial numbers and therefore untraceable – contain AR-15, AR-10, a pistol called "Liberator" and a Ruger 10/22. The technology could usher in an era of self-building weapons.
But on Monday, eight prosecutors and the District of Columbia in federal proceedings argued that this finder of downloadable weapons posed a serious threat to national security and should never be authorized by the US State Department in the first place. The authorization was a reversal from the department's previous position.
The states sued Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation, the State Department and other federal agencies that regulate weapons.
They ask a federal judge in Seattle to block the state's change in regulation, which allowed Defense Distributed to go forward, arguing that it allows criminals unimpeded access to guns and "literally" nullifies gun laws. Pennsylvania state officials said more than 1,000 people downloaded AR-15 data between Friday and Sunday.
"I have a question for the Trump administration: why allow dangerous criminals easy access to weapons?" Washington Attorney General Said Bob Ferguson. "These downloadable guns are unregistered and hard to detect, even with metal detectors, and available to anyone, regardless of age, mental health or criminal history, if the Trump administration does not bring us to safety, we will."
Trump , in his tweet, made no commitment to stop the company.
The states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut Massachusetts, Maryland and Oregon joined the lawsuit. Pennsylvania also sued Defense Distributed Sunday, resulting in an emergency room where the company agreed to temporarily block Pennsylvania's Internet users from its website.
Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Charles E. Schumer (DN.Y) and Edward J. It is also expected that Markey (D-Mass.) Will introduce, inter alia, the legislation on Tuesday to "endanger the threat." Tackle 3-D printable weapons, "said Markey's office.
The eleventh-hour lawsuit is just another chapter in a long dispute for Defense Distributed. The company and its founder, Cody Wilson, fought the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for five years – but this legal case came to an abrupt, if not surprising, end in June with the settlement agreement.
Before the Unification, the Federal Government in Obama The Trump administrations claimed that the online "technical data" used for the 3-D printing of weapons represented an illegal arms export, as everyone on the whole World had access to him. This would be a violation of international traffic rules, the government argued.
In 2015, Lisa V. Aguirre, the director of the Office of Defense Trade Controls Management at the State Department, warned the federal court in a 70-page declaration that Defense Distributed's downloadable weapons plans were denying the department any opportunity to determine whether the uploaded plans "would seriously damage the United States' national security or foreign policy interests," ITAR demanded.  "The United States and other countries rely on international arms embargoes, export controls and other measures to limit the availability of defense-related items sought by terrorist organizations," Aguirre wrote. "Providing [Defense Distributed’s files] with unrestricted access on the Internet would provide any organization with defense equipment, including firearms, that only access to a 3D printer, an item that is commercially available."
Wilson, Defense Distributed, and the Second Amendment, on the other hand, claimed that this was a first amendment, claiming that the Government's attempts to block the publication of information on the Internet constitute a prior restriction by the Supreme Court's precedent , In an interview on Sunday, Wilson's lawyer Josh Blackman compared the state government's attempts to block its client's website with the Pentagon Papers case in which the Nixon administration vainly tried to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from posting the content the Forwarded Report on the Vietnam War.
Wilson told Post that concerns about public security threats and gun regulations "are not what this controversy is about, it's about access to information," he said.
As late as April 2018, the Trump administration dismissed the First Amendment's argument, saying in a legal filing that Defense Distributed misrepresents "characterizing export as merely" publishing "information – these files undoubtedly guide the functioning of one 3-D printers, cause the manufacture of firearms or otherwise allow the production of such firearms by those abroad. "The regulation of the 3-D printing files is" to promote national security and foreign policy, "the government said.
But months later, in an apparent change, the Trump administration decided to remove the "technical data" for the blueprints of the 3-D guns from their list of US munitions, the June agreement with Defense Distributed means, it was free to go further. As the State Department said in an announcement on its website last week, officials found that this "temporary change" to the ammunition list "in the interests of United States security and foreign policy" was data from Category I of the US ammunition list, transfer of Supervision of the US Department of Commerce, but this rule has not yet been finalized.
A spokesman for the department told the Washington Post earlier this month, "The proposed regulations would address the ITAR requirements that are involved in this case."
In the lawsuit filed Monday, the Attorney General argued that this "Transitional change" violates the Administrative Procedure Act, as states claim "there is no indication in the Settlement Agreement (or elsewhere) that the Government Defendants, in consultation with other agencies, petition the Government agr for" Category I US "files
The Federal Government has also failed to notify the Congress of the list 30 days prior to removing the specifications and has not obtained the approval of the Attorney General
"The idea that the removal of an object from [U.S. munitions list] is in the interest of national security, contrary to common sense, "wrote the Gen prosecutor in the lawsuit.
The State Department could not immediately be reached early Tuesday for comment.