3D-gun blueprints: A crisis the left just can't waste

Those who feel it's perfectly appropriate to pass legislation to make it "unlawful for any person to publish" the blueprints to a 3D-printed handgun-looking thing clearly do not understand the Constitution or the progressive nature of legal or legislative precedent.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee appears to be the only one on Capitol Hill who does. Or he is at least the only one with the courage to say so out loud.

Sen. Lee also appears to be the only one who knows full well that this legislation is not a unique or a one-off event, and that it's not about blueprints.

"When you talk about publishing instructions to do something rather than banning the thing itself, you run into some potential First Amendment problems," the Utah Republican said Wednesday.

And he's correct, as usual. Of course, regarding anything regarding the Constitution, when isn't he?

It's hard to say whether Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson gave any thought to the potential consequence of trying to pass a bill to "make it illegal to intentionally publish a digital file that programs a 3D printer to make a gun," or not.

Regardless of his motivations, Cody Wilson, owner of Defense Distributed, is merely trying to disseminate information. But it's information the Dems, several leftist state attorneys general and a semi-retired Western District federal judge don't like.

And as Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review writes, "Current federal law [18 U.S.C. § 922(p)] already prohibits anyone from possessing an undetectable firearm." So even if someone were to create a 3-D printed weapon from Wilson's blueprints, they would legally have to register it.

When I heard of what the Dems were attempting to do, my first inkling was that this is just a typical hyperbolic knee-jerk leftist reaction to something they find offensive. But after a bit of reflection, I think there is more to this. There always is with statists. After all, the creed of the left is: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." Thank you, Rahm Emanuel, for allowing us to peak into the soul of the left.

Like Mike Lee and many other constitutionalists on the right, my bull-crap spider-senses began to tingle.

We understand that this bill isn't just about blueprints. It's about granting the federal government the power to limit free speech – the power to place limits on the First Amendment. It's about precedent.

Horowitz adds: "Imagine a conservative judge placing a nationwide injunction on a CAD file used for 3D printing of surgical instruments used for abortion simply because he had moral issues with the practice?"

But this is the entire point of even initially unknown consequences, or the slippery slope of precedent. If the leftist injunction is allowed to stand and the legislation passed, Wilson's blueprint would in fact become the blueprint for future restrictions on the First Amendment.

And this is how the progressive left operates. They may not get all they want on the first go-round, but even a narrow victory will serve as the framework to build upon. Once the precedent is set, the progressives can, in perpetuity, point to it and say, "Well that limitation was OK, so this one must be also."

Which is why we constitutionalists must always remain aware of not just the immediate fallout from decisions and legislation like this, but more importantly, of future restrictions of our liberties that will inevitably come because of it.

Our Constitution is the thing that sets us apart and ahead of all other nations. We must never allow it to be compromised away due to the expedient passions of the day.