Twitter | Search | |
Josh Blackman Jul 10
I am pleased to announce that a settlement has been reached in et al v. . (I have served as counsel for and since 2015). Press release: I will have more comment about our victory in due time.
Reply Retweet Like
Josh Blackman
My involvement began in 2014 when I wrote article for Rev. Symposium hosted by . My article, "The 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendment, and 3D Printed Guns," attracted attention. Then he hired , me, et al to sue
Reply Retweet Like More
Josh Blackman Jul 10
Replying to @alangura @Radomysisky
See also thread from my co-counsel - The government may have recognized it was unlikely to succeed on the merits. A complete vindication for
Reply Retweet Like
Raine Springer Jul 10
Let me get this straight: You are celebrating that people can make (3D print) guns, therefore bypassing licensing and back ground checks. Do I have that right? And you "won" because the Session's run "Justice" department backed down. Correct?
Reply Retweet Like
Karen Rylander Jul 10
Serious question which I don’t mean to be offensive, did you succeed because Trump is now the president?
Reply Retweet Like
Alan Gura Jul 10
No. The Trump DOJ isn’t known for doing 2A litigants any favors. That’s ridiculous. We had a full-blown preliminary injunction appeal and not 1 judge would say the govt had a likelihood of success on the merits. This was a strong 1st Amendment case.
Reply Retweet Like
Alan Gura Jul 10
Not exactly and no. I’m celebrating primarily because an absurd prior restraint on speech, that reaches far more than guns, is heading for the trash where it belongs.
Reply Retweet Like
Karen Rylander Jul 10
Thanks Alan. I really didn’t mean it to be as offensive as it may have sounded and I’m not out to ruin your celebratory mood. I am on the other side on this, though. And I wonder why people shouldn’t be able to have their own nuclear weaponry? Where is the line?
Reply Retweet Like
Josh Blackman Jul 10
Replying to @alangura
. explains this was a strong 1st Am case. The gov made the right decision and settled
Reply Retweet Like
Alan Gura Jul 10
Not rude. Nuclear weapons aren’t arms of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes. However — you absolutely CAN have a physics textbook, and freely exchange scientific information w/ others, even if it relates to or could be useful for nukes.
Reply Retweet Like
Alan Gura Jul 10
And this isn’t just about guns. What if the state department shut down your website on “national security” grounds because you offended a foreign leader? Same concept.
Reply Retweet Like
Karen Rylander Jul 10
Because gov wants to control free speech? But giving crazies guns suppresses free speech and liberty by the rest of us.
Reply Retweet Like
Josh Blackman Jul 10
Reply Retweet Like
Jay Tedder Jul 10
"Crazies" are already prevented from purchasing guns by existing gun laws. It's only when the laws aren't followed (as seen in several recent cases) that those who shouldn't have access to guns are able to get them. Proof that more laws aren't answer.
Reply Retweet Like
Karen Rylander Jul 10
But this was about plans for 3D printed guns. It seems to me like those will be pretty much impossible to regulate.
Reply Retweet Like
Alan Gura Jul 10
Why? Americans have always been free to make guns.
Reply Retweet Like
Karen Rylander Jul 10
It’s never been so easy to do it so secretively.
Reply Retweet Like
Jay Tedder Jul 10
They would still be subject to state & federal gun laws. Governments may have to come up with way to regulate (like sales tax on internet sales), but I'm sure they can figure it out.
Reply Retweet Like
Karen Rylander Jul 10
Well, as long as everybody follows the rules and regulations, we’ll be fine. But I don’t think that’s going to happen.
Reply Retweet Like
Jay Tedder Jul 10
People set on destruction will find a way to carry it out; no matter the laws.
Reply Retweet Like