Posted on July 30 2018
as previously discussed in yesterday’s entry found here
So a few moments ago the Judge entered this final order dismissing this case with prejudice. To date there’s no open source link to today’s order but the pacer link can be found here
And it should be noted that the Brady Center & Gifford Law Center along with several other parties on July 25, 2018 filed a JOINT EMERGENCY MOTION for Leave to Intervenors by The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc. Giffords. Documents 96-1 thru 96-6. This was a follow up to their July 24th Letter to the Judge, link found here.
On July 27th, U.S. District Judge ROBERT PITMAN issued an 8 page Order Denying the aforementioned Emergency TRO. Not that it matters but the Court failed to update the NEW Secretary of State, unless John Kerry is still our SOS vs Sec Pompeo, but I digress.
Before the Court are a Joint Emergency Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, Inc., and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (“the Brady Center”) (together, “Movants”), as well as a Joint Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary Injunction filed by the same parties, (Dkt. 97). Today, the Court held a hearing to consider the two motions.
Having considered the parties’ arguments, the evidence, and the relevant law, the Court will deny both motions.
Federal Civil Rules of Procedure 24(a)(1), requires any movant to adhere to said rule OR must meet each of the four requirements of Rule 24(a)(2):
(1) the application for intervention must be timely;
(2) the applicant must have an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action;
(3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede his ability to protect that interest;
(4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately represented by the existing parties to the suit.
I now refer you to page 3, paragraph 2 and page 4 paragraph which reads in part:
Plaintiffs argue that Movants fail to meet all four prongs of Rule 24(a)(2). (Mem. Opp. Mot. Intervene, Dkt. 107, at 15–24). Because the Court finds that Movants do not meet the second prong—the requirement of a sufficient interest in the main action—the Court need not analyze the remaining prongs.
The Court finds that Movants’ interest in this action is too generalized to establish their entitlement to intervention by right.
Moving along to pages 5 & 6, while the Court does have broad discretion this Court declined to use said discretion. Furthermore the Court also concluded the Movants lacked “standing” which is required.
The Court finds no authority to support the notion that simply expending organizational resources in support of a set of policy goals is sufficient to establish a legally protectable interest for purposes of Rule 24(a)(2), and Movants have cited none.
Movants are not entitled to intervention...
There are no questions of law or fact common to both the main action and Movants’ claims.
Contrary to the Movants’ belief, “an intervenor of right must have Article III standing in order to pursue relief that is different from that hich is sought by a party with standing.“
Pages 7 & 8, the Court’s rationale is the aforementioned parties lack standing therefore the action they sought are impermissible. I will say in my opinion the Court’s comments about the parties, gives me considerable pause, to that end my opinion is the Court was out of line and may have inadvertently created “controversy” hence now the Movants May actually have “standing” again that’s just my opinion. So don’t take it as gospel:
Movants submitted a declaration identifying activities they have undertaken since learning about the Agreement, such as “researching 3-D gun printing technology”; communicating with members, supporters, and lawmakers; submitting Freedom of Information Act requests related to the Agreement, and “work related to bringing the
instant legal action.
It is unclear how much of this work differs from the Movants’ “routine lobbying activities.”
For example, the Brady Center avers that if not for responding to the
Agreement, it would have been able to use more resources to work on “strengthening gun laws,” “fighting in the courts to defend gun laws,” and “providing direct legal advocacy on behalf of victims and communities affected by gun violence.
And then just like that, one by one various Attorneys General started tweeting and/or issuing public statements about the 3D gun “software” release:
Pennsylvania Attorney General:
Link to PA AG’s lawsuit found here.
The PA Gov & AG should be applauded— SpicyFiles (@SpicyFiles) July 30, 2018
“the Defendants deliver your gun to you directly through your internet connection. It can be “printed” on your 3D printer and immediately available for use. No I.D.; no background check; no waiting period.”
Link 👇🏻https://t.co/myIG4NsnNu pic.twitter.com/Z7NYCMyOBc
Washington Attorney General:
Earlier today, Attorney General Ferguson announces a coalition of the following State’s Attorney General:
Washington, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.
Link to the 52 page Complaint can be found here. As the Complaint clearly states as recent as April of 2018:
Government’s position was that if such CAD files were distributed via the internet, they could be “easily used overseas to make firearms that are subject to U.S. export controls”, where, “beyond the reach of U.S. law, they could be used to threaten U.S. national security, U.S. foreign policy interests, or international peace and stability.”
...make available for download as of August 1, 2018 include CAD files that can be used to manufacture a variety of weapons, including AR-15 frames2 and a 3-D printed pistol known as the “Liberator”, as well as a “computer-controlled milling machine” called the “Ghost Gunner,” which is designed to allow its owner to carve gun parts out of aluminum:
According to news reports,3 the Defense Distributed website’s repository of downloadable-gun files will also include “more exotic DIY semi-automatic weapons.” “The relaunched site will be open to user contribution, too; Wilson hopes it will soon serve as a searchable, user-generated database of practically any firearm imaginable.”
According to Wilson: “What’s about to happen is a Cambrian explosion of the digital content related to firearms.”
Wilson says: “All this Parkland stuff, the students, all these dreams of ‘common sense gun reforms’? No. The internet will serve guns, the gun is downloadable . . . No amount of petitions or die-ins or anything else can change that.”
To be clear I’m not a fan of Cody Wilson, or what he’s doing because the consequences are too great to enumerate and we aren’t taking about malicious code, we are talking about software that completely circumvents gun legislation.
#BREAKING We are suing the State Department to stop the illegal distribution of 3D-printed guns. This is an imminent threat to public safety and we have a responsibility to ensure these guns are never available online in any form. pic.twitter.com/91I1tk5zQW— Maura Healey (@MassAGO) July 30, 2018
States have the right to codify laws that serve the best interest of their residents. They notion that anyone with an internet connection and 3D printer can now print a gun, that’s not what our Framers of our Constitution intended. There’s literally zero requirement for users to: attest to their age, legality that they can own a firearm or there’s a court order prohibiting them from owning or “making” a firearm.
just to be clear, I’m not anti-2A I am PRO gun safety— SpicyFiles (@SpicyFiles) July 30, 2018
I spent a few years working for the NRA
I enjoy skeet shooting
The ability for ANYONE to NOW have the unfettered ability to print a gun/long gun is hugely problematic
2A “a well REGULATED MILITIA...”https://t.co/hxIKZV9CWu
And then Representative Cicilline formally announced he was introducing legislation, but the only problem is the House is in Recess until Labor Day. Below is his official tweet.
Here is Rep Ciccilline’s official Statement, which reads in part:
“Gun violence is an epidemic in our country,” said Cicilline.
“We should be doing everything we can to make it more difficult for criminals, children, and individuals with serious mental illness to possess a gun. Instead, the Trump administration’s decision will open the floodgates and allow anyone with access to the internet and a 3-D printer to possess a firearm. Even worse, these weapons are virtually undetectable by modern security devices used in airports, schools, and other would-be targets for mass shooters. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Congress needs to step in and prevent the distribution of this technology.”
Here is the link to the proposed bill Rep Cicilline submitted, found here
And if that doesn’t worry you, then you should read this CNN article:
On the website run by Defense Distributed people can download plans for building the Liberator, as well as files for an AR-15 lower receiver, a complete Baretta M9 handgun and other firearms. Users also will be able to share their own designs for guns, magazines and other accessories.🚨The site on Monday showed more than 12,000 downloads of seven different models of guns.
While you're here, throw us a bone.
Mad Dog is thrilled to have Spicy in our PAC(k). We are proud to provide a space for her tireless, hard hitting, in-depth investigations. But we can’t do it without you.
Our numbers are growing. Our voices are being heard. Our campaigns are making a difference. Help us, and Spicy, continue to fight the good fight. Consider a donation to help support the work of Mad Dog PAC today.