Defense Distributed v. Bonta

[michigander]

Seems like willful ignorance on the part of the judge. What test is he using if not THT? I realize Vanderstok can’t be used as precedent at this time, but that judge seemed to have no issue tying his analysis to Bruen/Heller on what seems to me to be a very related case.

[nick]

I agree. The judge clearly did not. I suppose we can expect similar from CA9.

I do think going after CNCs is a bit of a stretch currently. Need to get magazines, AWBs, rosters, permits, etc. nailed down first. Maybe then there will be sufficient case law for some of the more "nuanced" arguments. My personal view is, of course 2A protects building firearms. But there isn't much case law there yet. We haven't even made it past what Bruen requires of text.

In fact, building guns for personal use is supposedly more protected than manufacturing them for sale, as the commerce regulations don't apply, and the right cannot depend on a commercial product alone anyway. And without protecting building or manufacturing guns, the right to keep and bear them isn't protected.

[ritter]

In fact, building guns for personal use is supposedly more protected than manufacturing them for sale, as the commerce regulations don't apply, and the right cannot depend on a commercial product alone anyway. And without protecting building or manufacturing guns, the right to keep and bear them isn't protected.

Agree.

One can self-publish a book. One can build their own PC with which to write letters/email/***** post on the internet. One can produce their own media for art. One can make their own political demonstration signs. One can even build their own shrine in the backyard for private religious observance. Just a few examples of things protected by the 1A that I simply can't find anywhere in the text. The "it's not in the text" is a pretty disingenuous argument.

[curtisfong]

The "it's not in the text" is a pretty disingenuous argument.

This is why I call the court system corrupt. Not just broken.

[abinsinia]

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS - ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE by Judge George H. Wu. The Court sets a Scheduling Conference for November 28, 2022 at 8:30 a.m. Counsel are reminded of their obligations to disclose information, confer on a discovery plan, and report to the Court, as required by F.R.C.P. 26 and the Local Rules of this Court. Trial counsel are ordered to be present. A Joint 26(f) Report shall be filed with the Court no later than November 21, 2022. See Local Rule 26-1. (aco) (Entered: 10/24/2022)

Scheduling order.

[Chewy65]

What's concerning is that every argument from the state is that the behavior is outside the bound of the second amendment. This judge swallow that line. I think it's made easier for this case because it's CNC machines and not a direct gun ban.

I think that is not quite what the judge said, but I have been swamped and only have had time to give his ruling a cursory review. It isn't clear that he will eventually find self manufacture unprotected by the 2A. He may find it impliedy protected, but he has not found that the 2A's "plain text" protects the right to self manufacture.

Not that it is important, but I inherited one of those self built rifles; one which a backwoodsman thorugh together from parts. A barrel from here and a lock from there.

[Chewy65]

What's concerning is that every argument from the state is that the behavior is outside the bound of the second amendment. This judge swallow that line. I think it's made easier for this case because it's CNC machines and not a direct gun ban.

If I may play the devil's advocate, is this CNC only useable for making firearms? If it is equally tasked with making non firearm related items, are you saying that any tool that may be put to making a firearm is protected under the 2A? I don't see how it is possible, but have heard that Bedoins can fashion most parts, if not the entire firearm, from pieces of steel as long as they have common hand tools; files and hand drills and bits.

[abinsinia]

I think that is not quite what the judge said, but I have been swamped and only have had time to give his ruling a cursory review. It isn't clear that he will eventually find self manufacture unprotected by the 2A. He may find it impliedy protected, but he has not found that the 2A's "plain text" protects the right to self manufacture.

Not that it is important, but I inherited one of those self built rifles; one which a backwoodsman thorugh together from parts. A barrel from here and a lock from there.

He states his reading of Bruen is that if it's not protected by plain text, then it's not protected by the second amendment. That's his claimed reading. He also said that protecting CNC machines was a "penumbra" like when Roe protected aborting as part of the privacy right.

DD seemingly perceives a penumbra.

This judge would need some convincing to protect CNC machines.

[abinsinia]

If I may play the devil's advocate, is this CNC only useable for making firearms? If it is equally tasked with making non firearm related items, are you saying that any tool that may be put to making a firearm is protected under the 2A? I don't see how it is possible, but have heard that Bedoins can fashion most parts, if not the entire firearm, from pieces of steel as long as they have common hand tools; files and hand drills and bits.

Are computers protected for first amendment protected communications ? Also all things people do in the name of religion is protected unless you hurt other humans.

Yes, I think all tools used to make firearms are protected, it makes sense because if you can ban the tool you can ban the guns made with the tool. It's an arms ban.

[BAJ475]

If I may play the devil's advocate, is this CNC only useable for making firearms?

Of course not. But from what I understand this particular CNC machine only comes with coded instructions for producing firearms. On the other hand, most CNC machines do not come with code to make any particular part. They just offer the ability to be programed to automate the processes that were typically performed on manually operated machines.

If it is equally tasked with making non firearm related items, are you saying that any tool that may be put to making a firearm is protected under the 2A?

No. But the fact that a tool can be used to make a firearm or part of a firearm does not provide a basis for regulating or prohibiting its distribution and any such attempts based on possible use in manufacturing firearms is barred by the 2A.

I don't see how it is possible, but have heard that Bedoins can fashion most parts, if not the entire firearm, from pieces of steel as long as they have common hand tools; files and hand drills and bits.

Don't know but CNC machining centers, like the Haas VF2 in my shop, can easily produce firearm frames and receivers once you have the needed G-Code (the instruction that control the machine's movements) and the needed cutting tools.

[GetMeCoffee]

If it is equally tasked with making non firearm related items, are you saying that any tool that may be put to making a firearm is protected under the 2A?

No. But the fact that a tool can be used to make a firearm or part of a firearm does not provide a basis for regulating or prohibiting its distribution and any such attempts based on possible use in manufacturing firearms is barred by the 2A.

Just to put a finer point on this: Isn't there a requirement that regulations must serve a legitimate government purpose? For instance, in land use, a city cannot have a commercial zone which bans clock shops just because the citizens do not like clocks. In other words, regulations cannot be arbitrary, or am I incorrect? In this vein, neither could the government ban a CNC machine because it makes clocks. There's no legitimate government purpose there.

Likewise, the gov't could not ban a CNC machine just because it makes guns. Naturally they can articulate that guns are dangerous and therefore there is a government purpose, but since arms are protected by the 2A, wouldn't the state be precluded from using "because... guns!" to satisfy the legitimate purpose requirement?

[Odd_Ball]

Are computers protected for first amendment protected communications ? Also all things people do in the name of religion is protected unless you hurt other humans.

Yes, I think all tools used to make firearms are protected, it makes sense because if you can ban the tool you can ban the guns made with the tool. It's an arms ban.

Like with all things legal, maybe ... not sure if the Supreme Court has decided the issue, but the 9th Circuit held that code was speech in 1995 Bernstein case (which involved encryption software and the Government's attempt to use a national security argument to prevent its publication to the general public):

• https://clinics.law.harvard.edu/blog...protects-code/
• https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/0...ed-code-speech

Other would disagree, or have a more nuanced view:

• https://www.technologyreview.com/201...peech-mistake/

[abinsinia]

STIPULATION to Dismiss Case filed by Plaintiff Defense Distributed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Reynolds, Michael) (Entered: 11/18/2022)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550/gov.uscourts.cacd.861550.24.0.pdf

Judge sucks in this one.

[abinsinia]

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISMISSAL OF ACTION by Judge George H. Wu. Having reviewed the Stipulation and good cause appearing, the Court hereby approves the parties Stipulation and ORDERS as follows: 1. Plaintiffs First Claim for Relief is dismissed with prejudice. 2. Plaintiffs Second Claim for Relief is dismissed without prejudice. RE: Stipulation to Dismiss Case 24 , (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (aco) (Entered: 11/21/2022)

Looks like this case is over now.

[abinsinia]

This case moved into a suit against Defense Distributed in state court which DD recently lost. Here's the decision,

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/people-of-california-v-coast-runner-industries-tentative-order.pdf