WELCOME

The case centers on a federal judge in San Francisco

Aug. 7, 2018 by Paul Fletcher

The case centers on a federal judge in San Francisco whose May ruling in the case of Crespo v. Defense Distributed was challenged by the plaintiffs and the U.S. Supreme Court, which found that the U.S. Munitions List, which includes 3D printed firearms, could be kept online after the administration granted them to the plaintiffs.

"This government seeks to deny the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction to prevent unauthorized modifications of the US Munitions List, which it may have been permitted to do when it was published as part of the agreement [for the sale of the 3D printed 3D printer] with Defense Distributed," Lasnik wrote.

The judge added that the Defense Distributed case had "no merit," and did not require Congress to modify the ban.

Diana L. Darnell, director of the Center for American Progress's Center for Law and Justice at the Urban Institute, told The Hill that the court's ruling may be a victory for the Defense Distributed plaintiffs.

"It's a victory for the public interest," she said. "It puts a stop to the massive, unchecked surveillance that the government collects on private citizens and their businesses like they do on the public. But because the court found that the government was simply doing its job, the court must now take a stand against this outrageous practice."

The US Attorney General's Office said in a statement that the case is "a major victory for the public interest."

"While the government claims the plaintiffs did not violate the federal export laws, Congress has been acting unlawfully as a part of the government's global surveillance program," the statement said.

The case was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, a libertarian group which argues that the NSA has been collecting virtually all electronic communications of Americans since the phone call in late 2007 and that the government should be able to share that information with third parties.

The government argued that those communications, which the government says include the names of American citizens, are not subject to the government's "full spectrum" of metadata collection and that the government's collection of that data violates the Fourth Amendment.

The government also argues that the 3D printer has an unalienable right to privacy because it can be used by the government to create and repair custom weapons and armor. The lawsuit contends the government must use only 3D printed materials to produce weapons and armor that are "not subject to government surveillance," and it argues that the government's legal actions "create a new level of government surveillance that violates