Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts Good News Those Who Build Guns
Bender
107 points
81 comments
April 29, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 80.6ms across 8,303 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- California ghost-gun bill wants 3D printers to play cop, EFF says Bender · 120 pts · April 14, 2026 · 50% similar
- Congress Banned a Gun Registry. AI Doesn't Need One delschlangen · 12 pts · May 20, 2026 · 47% similar
- Judge sides with ICE tracker creators in DHS/DOJ First Amendment lawsuit speckx · 63 pts · April 20, 2026 · 45% similar
- Anthropic wins preliminary injunction in DoD fight on 1A m-hodges · 13 pts · March 26, 2026 · 42% similar
- Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music oj2828 · 320 pts · March 25, 2026 · 41% similar
Discussion Highlights (6 comments)
advisedwang
The actual opinion: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101... Full case record: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68598045/national-assoc...
Papazsazsa
The bigger question is constructive prohibition, i.e. can the government kill civil rights with a thousand cuts. This opinion is mostly standing/housekeeping. Here's a clean interpretation of the ruling https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca10/2... And the actual ruling [pdf]: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101...
akersten
Ok, so those bills in NY and WA about making it illegal to sell printers that don't detect firearm parts are dead in the water, right?
yieldcrv
10th circuit, no other circuit ruling on the case, a state bringing the case I could see this standing, there's no point in the state appealing, as Colorado couldn't reach another appeals circuit, and appealing to the Supreme Court limits SCOTUS to an appellate court and no original jurisdiction so the court has no reason to rule on this
15155
Who knew that the "well ackshually, technically, we're not banning guns, we're just requiring a serial number! (one that you cannot legally apply)" strategy wouldn't work. "Neener neener neener" isn't a valid legal theory.
exabrial
This is incredibly good news to anyone that believe in freedom of speech and expression.