Trump interrogates 3D printable firearms – which his own administration has just made available to the public

Trump's worry comes after democratic state officials filed last minute lawsuits and prepared the legislation in an unrestrained attempt to stop the widespread availability of 3D printable plastic guns.

After five years of litigation, the federal government reached a settlement on June 29 with the company responsible for filing public plans for downloading. Distributed Defense prides itself on being the only company of its kind in the United States authorized by the federal government to publish these plans as design data for 3D printers. The available weapons – plastic and without serial numbers and therefore not found – include the AR-15, the AR-10, a pistol called "Liberator" and a Ruger 10/22. Eight attorneys general and the District of Columbia have argued in a federal lawsuit that this downloadable weapons mine posed a serious threat to national security and should never have been authorized by the State Department in any way. the first place.

States sued the Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation, the State Department and other federal arms regulating agencies

They asked a Seattle federal judge to block the US Department of Justice. ;State. Regulatory change that has allowed Defense Distributed to go forward, arguing that it allows criminals to have unhindered access to firearms and that they can not have access to firearms. it "literally cancels" the gun regulations of the state. More than 1,000 people downloaded AR-15 data between Friday and Sunday, according to Pennsylvania officials

"I have a question for the Trump administration: Why do you allow dangerous criminals easy access to weapons? " Bob Ferguson said. "These downloadable weapons are unsaved and very difficult to detect, even with metal detectors, and will be accessible to all regardless of age, mental health or criminal background." If the Trump Administration do not keep us safe, we'll do it. "

Trump, in his Tweet, offers no commitment to stop the company's activities.

The states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland and Oregon joined the lawsuit. Pennsylvania also filed a lawsuit against Defense Distributed Sunday, resulting in an emergency hearing in which the company decided to temporarily block Pennsylvania netizens on its website.

Democrat lawmakers, including Charles E. Schumer and Edward J. We also expect Markey, (D-Mass.), To present legislation on Tuesday to "address the threat" posed by printable canons 3-D, Markey's office said. chapter in what has been a long legal battle for Distributed Defense. The company and its founder, Cody Wilson, have spent five years fighting the state department – but this legal case has come to an abrupt and surprising end with the settlement agreement.

Before the settlement, the federal government in both Obama and Trump administrations maintained that the "technical data" online used to print three-dimensional firearms constituted an illegal export of firearms, since n & # 39; anyone on the other side of the world could access it. According to the Government, this would be a violation of the Regulations on International Arms Trafficking

In 2015, Lisa V. Aguirre, who was Director of the Office of Defense Trade Controls Management within the Department of State, warned the Federal Court. a 70-page statement that Defense Distributed's downloadable firearm manufacturing schemes would deprive the department of any possibility of determining whether the downloaded plans "would cause significant harm to the national security or foreign policy interests of the states." -United". "The United States and other countries rely on international arms embargoes, export controls and other measures to restrict the availability of defense items sought by terrorist organizations," writes Aguirre . "Making [Defense Distributed’s files] available through unlimited Internet access would provide such an organization with defense items, including firearms, at its convenience, subject only to its access to a widely available 3D printer. . "

Wilson, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation, however, argued that there is a first amendment, stating that the government's attempts to block the publication of information on the web constitute a prior restriction prohibited by the precedent of the Supreme Court. In an interview Sunday, Wilson's lawyer, Josh Blackman, compared the government's attempts to block his client's website to the Pentagon Papers case, in which the Nixon administration attempted without success in preventing the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the leaked content of the Vietnam War Report.

Wilson told the post that concerns about public safety risks and gun regulations "are not what this controversy is about. In 1965, the Trump administration rejected the First Amendment's argument by stating in a legal act that "the definition of an export by Distributed Defense as the mere" publication "of information is fake – these files undoubtedly run the operation of a 3D printer, have it make firearms or allow the creation of such firearms abroad. "The regulation of 3D print files is" in the interest of national security and But, a few months later, the Trump administration has decided to remove the "technical data" for the plans of the D & D Three-dimensional weapons from its list of US ammunition as part of an apparent change. The June settlement agreement with Distributed Defense, which means that he was free to go ahead. As the State Department explained when posting an ad on its webpage last week, officials determined that this "temporary change" in the ammunition list was "in the air." interest of US security and foreign policy ". Category I data from the US ammunition list, transferring surveillance to the US Department of Commerce, but this rule has not yet been finalized.

A spokesman for the ministry told the Washington Post earlier this month: "

In the lawsuit filed on Monday, attorneys general claimed that this" temporary amendment "violates the Administrative Procedure Act because that, according to the states, "there is no indication in the Settlement Agreement (or elsewhere) that any analysis, study or determination has been made by the Government Defendants, in consultation with any other party. Others The federal government also failed to notify the Congress 30 days before removing the technical data from the list and did not obtain the approval of the Secretary of Defense, Attorneys General.

"The notion that the withdrawal of an object of [U.S. munitions list] is in the interest of national security defies common sense," wrote the attorneys general in the lawsuit

. reached to comment early Tuesday.