I've long described the Second Amendment as the insurance policy for the rest of the Bill of Rights. I'm sure I'm not the first to phrase it just that way, but it's how I've looked at it for years, and many of you do as well, even if you use different words and metaphors.
That's cool.
In the long run, though, any attack on the Second Amendment is, in fact, an attack on the rest of our rights. It's just usually not very obvious that's what's happening.
With New York's ban on not just so-called ghost guns, but even the files themselves, though, they're taking the mask off almost entirely.
In 1995, when Phil Zimmermann was having legal difficulty with encrypting communications in the early stages of the internet—strong encryption was then considered to be a controlled “munition” by the U.S. government—he published the PGP’s (Pretty Good Privacy) source code in a book, PGP: Source Code and Internals. He did this to specifically challenge U.S. export controls on strong encryption, as printing the code in a book made it First Amendment-protected speech.
The gambit worked. Rather than fight this in the courts on First Amendment grounds, the government dropped the case. This paved the way for the internet we now use—online purchasing, banking and more would not be possible without strong encryption.
Today, code for the 3D-printing of guns and gun parts are being treated similarly by gun-ban legislators.
In a recent example, as the New York state legislature session begins, New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) announced multiple proposals that target the sale/manufacture of 3D-printed guns and gun-related items.
Also, under the proposed legislation, gun manufacturers would be required to design firearms in a way that would make it harder to modify them to shoot full-auto—this is, of course, already illegal.
...Any constitutional layman can see the First Amendment implications in banning the dissemination of code, but there is a lot more going on with this old/new topic.
As NRA-ILA has explained, “While 3D printing is a newer and developing technology, homemade firearms, or PMFs (privately made firearms) are not. Since the birth of our nation, citizens have enjoyed the right to create their own privately made firearms. A review of the basic facts on PMFs would have made for a helpful presentation at the summit.
In reality, this is no different than banning a book that describes how to make a firearm with home-based equipment.
There are sites, for example, that will provide you with the plans and directions to make your own CNC machine, your own metal lathe, and literally anything else you'd need in a gun manufacturing operation. These are, of course, perfectly legal. Instructions on how to use those to make a gun would be a form of speech.
And the courts have long ruled that software is a form of speech.
"But this is different. These files help people break the law."
Yeah, and the Anarchist's Cookbook included a lot of things that, if you did them, would land you in prison, but the book wasn't banned in this country. A lot of people wouldn't sell it, but that was their choice. You could still buy it lawfully if you could find someone to sell it to you.
That's how it's supposed to be.
With these bans on the files for 3D printed firearms, though, states like New York are essentially banning the speech that makes the potential crime possible, but if this slides, this opens the door for banning other forms of speech that might be controversial down the road.
The thing is, controversial things are what matter the most when it comes to free speech. No one needs their free speech protected to say Sydney Sweeney has wonderful...um...assets. That's a non-controversial statement of fact.
It's another thing to say that the entire nation should burn to the ground, which an awful lot of people are saying right now and aren't going to prison for it. Nor should they. I like it when stupid people self-identify.
Look, I've got a lot of these files on my hard drive right now. I don't own a 3D printer.
Why do I have them? Because they're my hedge against tyranny. I know that I can at least print the parts for a gun should the need ever arise. That's also why I engage in free speech as a matter of career. It's why many of you engage in pro-Second Amendment advocacy. It's because speech matters. Using our rights means keeping our rights. Failure to use them just makes it easier for them to disappear into the dustbin of history, and no right should ever land there.
Ever.
New York and other states aren't just trampling on gun rights. They're trampling on the Bill of Rights.
